Quashed

New Metro Hospital and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2019WRIC/19946/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order dated 27.5.2019 cancelling the petitioner's clinical establishment registration because it was passed without issuing any notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice and Section 32 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of impugned order cancelling registration; direction to pass fresh order after hearing within 60 days.

New Metro Hospital and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19946 of 2019 Petitioner :- New Metro Hospital And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupesh Kumar Singh,Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :-

¶5

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned order dated 27.5.2019 passed by the respondent no.3-Chief Medical Officer, District Deoria (Annexure no.3 to the writ petition)."

¶6

This Court, vide order dated 7.6.2019, had passed the following order :-

¶7

"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order dated 27.05.2019 cancelling the registration of the petitioners' Clinical Establishment is not in conformity with the principles of natural justice as also the provisions of Section 32 of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, inasmuch as, no notice was given to the petitioners inviting his explanation to the alleged inspection report. It has been submitted that Section 32 of the Act specifically provides that action shall be taken only after reasonable opportunity is given to the Clinical Establishment. It has been submitted that the alleged inspection was carried out on 26.05.2019 and cancellation of the registration was made on 27.05.2019 and, in between, no notice was given to the petitioners. It has been submitted that otherwise the registration of the petitioner is valid till 30th April, 2020.

¶8

The matter requires consideration.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. He prays for and is allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks, thereafter, shall be for the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶10

List this petition on 25th July, 2019.

¶11

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria (Annexure No.3 to the petition) shall remain stayed. Although it shall be open to the respondent to draw proceeding for cancellation of registration in accordance with law."

¶12

Despite time having been granted to learned Standing Counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed till date.

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner is that registration of the petitioners' Clinical Establishment has been cancelled by the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria by the impugned order dated 27.5.2019. Neither any notice has been issued in this regard nor any opportunity has been given to the petitioners. A copy of the impugned order dated 27.5.2019 has been annexed as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we hereby quash the impugned order dated 27.5.2019, issued by respondent no.3 - Chief Medical Officer, District Deoria, against the petitioners and direct the concerned authority to pass afresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to serve a copy of this order within a period of one week on the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria failing which the benefit granted to the petitioner under this order shall automatically cease to operate.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of .

¶17

Shri Harvansh Singh, learned Standing Counsel undertakes to inform about this order to the Chief Medical Officer, Deoria forthwith.

¶18

Let a copy of this order be made available to learned Standing Counsel free of cost for doing needful in the matter as observed hereinabove.

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Rishabh

New Metro Hospital and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New Metro Hospital and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Margoob Vs State of U.P. and Others

Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and Another

Sanjay Saxena and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Saraswati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ranveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shamim Vs State of U.P. and Another