Surya Mani Tiwari Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secct Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2410 of 2024

Surya Mani Tiwari ..... … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶3

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate. For the State : Ms Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA For the Bank : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate.

¶4

¶5

05/ 12.07.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the order dated 18.09.2023, passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gumla, whereby the license to run the hospital in the name of Namrata Hospital LLP has been suspended as per the Clinical Establishment Act, on account of the FIR, being Gumla Sadar P.S. Case No. 323 of 2023. Further prayer is made for a direction upon the respondent No. 6 to de-freeze the Bank account of the petitioner bearing Number-06480210000243 of UCO Bank immediately and forthwith.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the proprietor of Namrata Hospital, Gumla and said hospital was running since 2009. He submits that in that area that hospital is one of the best hospital which is engaged in treating eye patients and has treated large number of patients under the scheme of Ayushman Bharat Mukhya Mantri Jan Arogya Yogna and National Programme for Control of Blindness and this hospital was chosen by the authorities concerned for treatment. He submits that the said hospital is also providing free of cost treatment to the needy patients. He further submits that the FIR was lodged alleging therein that under the aforesaid scheme, the treatment was provided, however, twice the amount was withdrawn. He submits that by the impugned order, the license of the hospital was suspended for indefinite period without following the due process of law even without issuing any notice to the said hospital. He also submits that Rule 9 of the Jharkhand State

¶8

-1-

¶9

Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013 provides that after providing an opportunity of hearing and after calling written explanation, such action can be taken, however, in the present case, in absence of that, the impugned order has been passed. He submits that further the petitioner is facing difficulty in discharge of liability without any rhyme and reason and simply on the direction of the Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, the UCO Bank has freezed the account. On these grounds, he submits that appropriate order may kindly be passed.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the allegations are serious in nature that’s why the FIR has been registered in view of that the license of the petitioner has been suspended after following the due procedure of law. She submits that Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is the document, by which, the show cause has been called upon from the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner is having the alternative remedy.

¶11

In reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the show cause has never been received by the petitioner.

¶12

In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court finds that the license has been issued by the authorities concerned and Rule-9 of the Jharkhand State Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2013 clearly speaks that only after providing an opportunity of hearing and after calling the written explanation, the said order can be passed. From the said order itself, it transpires that petitioner has not been provided any opportunity of hearing and also the explanation has not been called upon from the petitioner, as such, this court finds that the said Rule is not complied with. Further it is also well settled that in violation of the principles of natural justice, no order can be passed.

¶13

As such, the order dated 18.09.2023, passed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gumla, is hereby, set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gumla to proceed in accordance with law.

¶14

-2-

¶15

The court further finds that in absence of any direct allegation so far as bank account in question is concerned and only on the direction of the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Gumla, the Bank account of the petitioner is freezed and due to that the petitioner is having difficulty. Unless any account is found to be indulged in any crime, the direction of freezing of account cannot be passed,

¶16

Prima facie , it appears that there is no nexus of the account, which is related with any crime, as such, the Bank account of the petitioner bearing Number-06480210000243 of UCO Bank shall be allowed to be operated by the petitioner.

¶17

With the above observation and direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶18

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶19

Amitesh/-

¶20

-3-

Surya Mani Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secct Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya Mani Tiwari v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secct Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sujit Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramesh Gope Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Deptt of Revenue and Registration and Land Reforms

Biren Kumar Mondal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vandana Kumari Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India through Its Divisional Head

Shyampad Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand