Disposed

Shri S B Ashok v. Union of India

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/1930/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the grant of permission to an existing entity to operate a Janoushadhi Kendra in a government hospital. The petitioner, who had been selected earlier, contended violation of natural justice. The court held that since the existing operator is a state instrumentality and is operating without complaint, disturbing the existing arrangement would serve

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri S B Ashok Vs Union of India — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 1930 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1930 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHRI S.B. ASHOK, S/O S.K. BASAVEGOWDA, SASALUPURADA KOPPALU, SRINIVASAPURA POST, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 116.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

UNION OF INDIA, DEPT. OF CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

BUREAU OF PHARMA PSU OF INDIA (BBPI), UNDER THE AEGIS OF DEPT. OF PHARMACEUTICALS, ROOM NO.304, B WING, JANPATH BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DRUGS CONTROL DEPARTMENT, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, BENGALURU 560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (MED) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1930 of 2018

¶18

DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, SALAGAME ROAD, HASSAN 573 201.

¶19

ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, DRUGS CONTROL DEPARTMENT, HASSAN CIRCLE, H.NO:EW-9-317/1, SRI DURGA NILAYA, SRI VENKATESHWARA NURSING HOME, NEAR RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASSAN 573 202.

¶20

MYSORE SALES AND INTERNATIONAL LTD., CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001, REP. BY ITS THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (PHARMA DIVISION).

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. THIMMANNA BHAT, CGC FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, HCGP, FOR R3 TO R7; SRI. M.V.VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R8)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER CANCELLING THE LICENSE GRANTED TO THE EIGHTH RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY THE R-7, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE LICENSE TO THE PETITIONER TO START JANOUSHADI KENDRA IN THE PREMISES OF GENERAL HOSPITAL, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO START JANOUSHADI KENDRA IN THE PREMISES OF GENERAL HOSPITAL, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

WP No. 1930 of 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Challenging order dated 28.11.2017 passed by respondent no.7 approving grant of permission for opening ' Janoushadhi Kendra' at General Hospital, Channarayapatna, Hassan District, in favour of respondent no.8 - Mysore Sales and International Ltd., (for short ' MSIL ') and seeking for direction to respondents to issue said permission to petitioner, this petition is filed.

¶29

Sri. Srihari, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in pursuance of notification (Annexure-B), inviting applications for ' Pradhana Mantri Bharatiya Janoushadi Kendra' , petitioner filed application (Annexure-E) along with certificates etc. Same was considered and respondent no.5 directed for issuance of permission to petitioner as per Official Memorandum (Annexure-F) dated 24.10.2017. Thereafter some time was spent in internal correspondence for suitable place to open ‘ Janoushadhi Kendra' .

¶30

In meanwhile, however without either cancelling permission granted to him or providing opportunity, respondent no.7 passed impugned order permitting respondent no.8 to open ' Janoushadhi kendra' . As same was in violation of principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations of

¶31

¶32

WP No. 1930 of 2018

¶33

petitioner, impugned order was contended to be illegal and arbitrary and hence liable to be quashed by issuing direction to permit petitioner to establish and run ' Janoushadhi Kendra' .

¶34

On other hand, learned HCGP appearing for

¶35

respondents no.3 to 7 submitted that initially as per general approval dated 26.11.2016 (Annexure-R1), respondent no.8 was an agency suitable for running ' Janoushadhi Kendra' at Government hospitals. Since there was delay in establishment of same at General Hospital, Channarayapatna, notification was issued calling for application from general public. In meanwhile, and before petitioner was about to establish ' Janoushadhi Kendra' as per order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure-F), respondent no.8 – MSIL was granted permission, which had established ' Janoushadhi Kendra' and running since 28.11.2017. It was submitted that as no right had accrued in favour of petitioner and there was no violation of any right, therefore, there was no merit in writ petition.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent no.8 adopted submission of respondents no.3 to 7 and submitted that respondent no.8 was operating ' Janoushadhi Kendra' from 28.11.2017. And as it was state agency, which was originally

¶37

¶38

WP No. 1930 of 2018

¶39

identified to establish ' Janoushadhi Kendra' , there was no illegality committed by respondents warranting interference by this Court.

¶40

Heard.

¶41

From above submission, it is seen that in pursuance of notification (Annexure-B), petitioner had submitted application and was also selected. But before respondents identifying suitable place for opening ' Janoushadhi Kendra', they granted permission to respondent no.8 to open same. Though petitioner was not notified before granting permission to respondent no.8 and permission granted was not withdrawn, since respondent no.8, which is a State instrumentality had established ' Janoushadhi Kendra' and operating it apparently without any complaint, no useful purpose would be served in upsetting same and permitting petitioner to establish ' Janoushadhi Kendra' at said hospital, especially at this length of time.

¶42

Further, Legitimate Expectations Under the Constitution at best entails opportunity of hearing or decision taken to be fair¹ . Hence on mere violation of legitimate

¶43

1 [ILR Kar.1998(2) Journal, page 37]

¶44

¶45

WP No. 1930 of 2018

¶46

expectations, it would not justify interference by this Court with ' Janoushadhi Kendra' established by respondent no.8 – MSIL at General Hospital, Channarayapatna. It would suffice by directing respondents to consider petitioner's case for granting permission for opening ' Janoushadhi Kendra' in any other hospital/place either in Hassan or nearby Districts, in case same were open for establishment by private entity other than MSIL.

¶47

With said directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶48

It would be open for petitioner to bring any such opportunity to notice of respondents and seek for consideration as per above directions.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Psg*

Shri S B Ashok v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri S B Ashok v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shylashree Vs Karnataka Housing Board

Nagappa S/O. Manjappa Honnura Vs Smt Gowramma W/O Late Manjappa

Sri Karethimmaiah @ Thimmaiah Vs Sri H Muddahanumaiah

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Poornima

Sri Thimmappa Vs the Registrar

S a Thippeswamy Vs C M Ravindranath