Quashed

Dr.Bathana Kusuma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2021WP/11101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed an impugned penalty order imposed on petitioners for alleged violations of Covid-19 regulations at their nursing home due to lack of notice. The matter was remanded to the third respondent with liberty to initiate proceedings after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned penalty order dated 26.05.2021 set aside; proceedings remanded with liberty to initiate action after hearing; impugned order treated as show cause notice.

Dr.Bathana Kusuma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.11101 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.05.2021 issued by the 2^nd respondent imposing penalty of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) on the petitioners, on the ground that the petitioners had not followed the Covid-19 regulations for providing nursing home being run by the petitioners.

¶4

The learned Government Pleader would submit that the nursing home established by the petitioners without prior permission and five of the patients admitted by the petitioners had passed away while undergoing treatment from the nursing home of the petitioners.

¶5

In view of the fact that the penalty has been imposed without giving an opportunity of hearing and without giving any notice to the petitioners, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order vide proceedings in RC.No.PENALTY/COVID19/KNL/2021, dated 26.05.2021, with liberty to the 3^rd respondent to initiate action and take an appropriate decision in the matter after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and after considering the objections and material that the petitioners would place before the 3^rd respondent.

¶6

¶7

W.P.No.11101 of 2021

¶8

For this purpose, the impugned order shall be treated as a show cause notice to the petitioners and the petitioners shall submit their objections to the proposed action within a period of two weeks from today. Thereupon, the 3^rd respondent shall consider the objections of the petitioners and pass a speaking order.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There

¶10

shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶12

shall stand closed.

¶13

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶14

14.07.2021 SDP

¶15

RRR,J3 W.P.No.11101 of 2021

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶17

WRIT PETITION No.11101 of 2021

¶18

14-07-2021

¶19

SDP

Dr.Bathana Kusuma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bathana Kusuma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Satish, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Maganti Nagaraju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Katuri Sivaji Raju Vs the Govt of Ap

T.S.Nageswara Rao Vs Smt.U.Usharani IAS

Sudarthi Venu, Vs Ms. Arti Ahuja

Neelam Lazar, Prakasam Dist. Vs K.Jawahar Reddy, Guntur Dist.and 4 Others