Allowed

M/s. City Care Hospital, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jul 2021WP/12580/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging penalty proceedings levied against a private hospital during the pandemic. The levy was set aside as the authorities failed to issue a show cause notice or provide an opportunity of hearing before imposing the fine, violating natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings filed in file Nos. YSRAHCT/KDP/7/COVID and YSRAHCT/KDP/13/COVID set aside.

M/s. City Care Hospital, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.12580 of 2021

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The 2^nd petitioner had setup the 1^st petitioner which is a Hospital in Kadapa City. The 1^st respondent-Government had also notified the 1^st petitioner hospital for treatment of Covid patients during Covid-19 Pandemic. On 05.05.2021 a raid was conducted on the various notified Covid-19 hospitals in Kadapa District including that of the 1^st petitioner hospital. Thereupon, 2^nd respondent is said to have lodged a complaint before Kadapa I-Town U/g Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.89 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 188, 420 and 406 of IPC and Sections 51(b) and 53 of Disaster Management Act, 2005. Apart from the said case, the 4^th respondent issue directions on 28.05.2021 in file No.YSRAHCT/KDP/7/COVID and consequential proceedings on 04.06.2021 in file No.YSRAHCT/KDP/13/COVID directing the petitioners to pay a penalty amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶4

Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶5

Sri V.Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that these proceedings were issued without any show cause notice being given to the petitioners and without the petitioners being given an opportunity of hearing. He submits that the petitioners have a proper and adequate case to demonstrate that they were not in violation of

¶6

RRR,J2 W.P.No.12580 of 2021

¶7

any of the directions issued by the Government and that levy of fine would not arise.

¶8

Sri A.V.S.Rama Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent-Temple, on instructions, submits that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners prior to the impugned proceedings. He further submits that the proceedings were initiated as the facts were clear and there was no requirement for any further enquiry.

¶9

In view of the fact that the impugned proceedings of levying penalty/fine of Rs.5,00,000/- had been issued to the petitioners without giving them any opportunity of hearing and without giving them an opportunity of placing their version before the 4^th respondent, there is a violation of principles of natural justice.

¶10

At this stage, it would not be appropriate to determine whether the petitioners would have been able to make out a case or not. That determination would arise only after the petitioners had put forth their defenses.

¶11

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings in file No.YSRAHCT/KDP/7/COVID, dated 28.05.2021 and

¶12

consequential proceedings in file No.YSRAHCT/KDP/13/COVID, dated 04.06.2021 of the 4^th respondent and leaving it open to the 4^th respondent to initiate action against the petitioners, if thought necessary by giving proper notice and opportunity of

¶13

RRR,J3 W.P.No.12580 of 2021

¶14

hearing to the petitioners and to pass orders thereafter. There

¶15

shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶18

05.07.2021 SDP

¶19

RRR,J4 W.P.No.12580 of 2021

¶20

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.12580 of 2021

¶22

05-07-2021

¶23

SDP

M/s. City Care Hospital, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. City Care Hospital, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Chennupati Rambabu, Vs The Principle. Secretary Government

P Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Geddada Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ginjala Bhoomayya Vs the State of Ap

G J Moses Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lagadapati Narayanaswamy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh