Dr. K.C. Memorial Gupta Hospital HOSP9P00873 Amroha Thru. Director Dr. Abhishek Jain vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 7 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 8790 of 2025

¶3

Dr. K.C. Memorial Gupta Hospital Hosp9p00873 Amroha Thru. Director Dr. Abhishek Jain

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare New Delhi And 7 Others

¶7

And Family Welfare New Delhi And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pt. S. Chandra : Counsel for Respondent(s) A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Madhukar Ojha

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

¶10

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has prayed for the following substantial relief(s):

¶11

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by State Nodel Officer, Lucknow upto the extent the portal of petitioner is blocked and made stop payment as contained in Annexure No.8.

¶12

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the letter dated 14.08.2025 passed by State Nodel Officer, Lucknow contained in Annexure No.12 to this writ petition.

¶13

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the record and to quash the impugned suspension of the petitioner communicated through E-mail dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition).

¶14

iv. Issue a writ, order direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondent No.2 and 4 to forthwith restore the PM-PAY Portal of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to discharge its Health Care Services.

¶15

WRIC No. 8790 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

v. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite parties to allow the petitioner PM-JAY Portal as earlier without any obstruction and permit petitioner to discharge its health care services as earlier as it was going on before 13.06.2025 and clear all the payments and dues which is due in favour of petitioner-Hospital.

¶18

vi. Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

¶19

Mr. Pt. S. Chandra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present suspension made by the authority concerned is in violation of principles of of natural justice as the suspension was made without any opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. Furthermore, he submits that this suspension has been continuing for past nine months.

¶20

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied on a letter dated 26.02.2026 wherein the respondent has decided to continue with the suspension of all 34 hospitals for indefinite period till police investigation is completed.

¶21

Mr. Pt. S. Chandra submits that in absolutely similar matters, wherein the suspension was made by the authority, relief had already been granted by this Court at Allahabad in the case of Galaxy Surgical and Maternity Center (Empanelled Health Care Provider of EHCP) and another vs. Union of India and others, Writ-C No.21383 of 2025 and Gulawati Pulse Super Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India and others, WritC No.1153 of 2026 .

¶22

It is to be noted that in the first matter Galaxy Surgical and Maternity Center (supra), order was passed on July 30, 2025 and second order has been passed on January 27, 2026. He submits that since matter of the petitioner is on the same footing as in the case of the earlier two writ petitions, relief should be granted to the

¶23

WRIC No. 8790 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

petitioner. He further submits that other hospitals have also been given similar relief by this Court at Allahabad.

¶26

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that the suspension done in the present case falls under Annexure-6, Para-B, Step-3 (ii) of the Agreement dated 28.09.2018 and accordingly there was no requirement to follow the earlier Steps 1 & 2 as provided in Clause-B. He further submits that the petitioner was involved in unethical practices and financial fraud and therefore the step of suspension was taken.

¶27

We are unable to understand the contrary stands being taken by the department before this Court at Allahabad and Lucknow. It is very clear from the order that has been passed by the coordinate Benches that the counsel there appearing on behalf of the authority conceded to the point that the opportunity of hearing was not granted and therefore, the Court passed directions directing the authority to follow the proper procedure for suspension and disciplinary action. As is evident, the facts of the petitioner's case are the same as in the cases wherein relief had been granted to the other petitioners. We do not see any reason for taking a contrary view at this stage, specially after a period of eight months, wherein the suspension is continuing and no formal result has come.

¶28

In light of the same, the suspension is quashed and set aside. The authority concerned is directed to follow the procedure as provided in Annexure-6, in accordance with law.

¶29

The present order shall not be an impediment for the authority concerned from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶30

With the above directions, writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

March 10, 2026

¶32

akhilesh/-

¶33

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. K.C. Memorial Gupta Hospital HOSP9P00873 Amroha Thru. Director Dr. Abhishek Jain v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. K.C. Memorial Gupta Hospital HOSP9P00873 Amroha Thru. Director Dr. Abhishek Jain v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit Gupta vs Reserve Bank of India Thru. Governor and 7 Others

Smt.Meera Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Dr Govind Prasad vs Gm (1) State Bank at Motimahal Road Hazrat Ganj Lko. and Another

M/S Expert Industrial Security Services of India Thru.Proprietor,Smt.Binu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. and 15 Others

Pratibha Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Excise Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Photon Hospital HOSP9P142287 Thru. Director, Dr. Mohd. Asad vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi and 7 Others