Dismissed

M/S.Mahesh Medical Store v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 May 2024WP(C)/3366/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition challenging the administration's refusal to renew a lease for an on-campus medicine shop. Relying on a batch judgment dated 19.04.2024, the court found that the petitioners' plight was outweighed by the state's policy of free medicinal care and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; interim order vacated; no order as to costs.

M/S.Mahesh Medical Store Vs State of Odisha — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3366 of 2018

¶2

M/s. Mahesh Medical Store …. Petitioner

¶3

Represented By Adv. Mr. A. Dash

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. State of Odisha & Anr Opposite Parties Represented By AGA Mr. Ch. S. Mishra

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

Order No.

ORDER 15.05.2024

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶12

2 . The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging

¶13

the action of the Opposite Parties in not considering the application for renewal of lease/license for Medicine Shop which is located inside the District Head Quarters Hospital, Baripada. Further, the Petitioner challenges the office memorandum no.4538 dated 27.02.2015 of the Joint Secretary, Government of Odisha, Health and Family Welfare Department in directing not to extend the license/lease on-campus medical stores thoughout the State.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

3 . However, it is apparent from the record and the submissions made that the issue involved in this case is similar to the cases of WP(C) No.5136 of 2015 ( M/s Mahavir Medicine Store, Rairakhol –vrs.- State of Odisha & Ors.) and batch of Writ Petitions which were disposed of vide common judgment dated 19.04.2024.

¶17

4 . The ordering portions of the said judgment are as follows:

¶18

“18. State policies, ideally rooted in deontological principles, often tend to adopt a utilitarian approach in practice. This entails prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. However, Courts play a crucial role in maintaining a delicate balance in this regard. While policies aim to maximize overall societal benefit, it is imperative that the rights and well-being of parties at peril are safeguarded.

¶19

19. This Court acknowledges the importance of state policies aimed at enhancing public welfare, particularly those concerning healthcare, as addressed in this case. These policies are crafted to address societal needs and enhance the overall well-being of citizens. Despite this acknowledgment, the judiciary also upholds the protection of individual rights enshrined in constitutional principles, including equality, liberty, and due process. It is incumbent upon the judiciary to safeguard these rights even within the context of state welfare initiatives.

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

// 3 //

¶22

20. Therefore, striking a balance between supporting state welfare policies and safeguarding individual rights presents a significant challenge for the judiciary. While supporting state welfare policies, the judiciary must strive to minimize the damage to parties adversely affected by these policies. 21. The free medicinal care policy by the state marks a monumental step forward in prioritizing public health and welfare. By providing essential healthcare services and medications at no cost to citizens, this policy demonstrates a commitment to ensuring access to healthcare for all, regardless of socioeconomic status. It not only addresses immediate healthcare needs but also contributes to longterm benefits such as improved health outcomes, reduced healthcare disparities, and enhanced overall quality of life for the population. Additionally, such a policy aligns with principles of social justice and equity, promoting the fundamental right to healthcare for all individuals.

¶23

22. In the current scenario, although the involved parties are at a disadvantage, their plight is outweighed by the broader objective of welfarism. While the petitioners may face challenges, their situation does not pose a threat to their constitutional rights.

¶24

23. Therefore, in light of the discussion above, keeping the settled principles of law in mind and for the reasons given above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order warrants no interference.

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

// 4 //

¶27

24. Resultantly, the challenge in the aforesaid Writ Petitions must fail and the same are dismissed. The CONTCs are also dropped being dismissed. All pending IAs stand disposed of on the abovementioned terms. Interim order, if any, passed earlier in any of the aforementioned Writ Petitions stands vacated. No order as to costs.”

¶28

5 . Therefore, in view of the common judgment dated

¶29

19.04.2024 passed in WP(C) No.5136 of 2015 ( M/s Mahavir Medicine Store, Rairakhol –vrs.- State of Odisha & Ors.) and batch of cases, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶30

6. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

¶31

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)

¶32

Judge

¶33

Sumitra

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-May-2024 17:59:08

¶36

Page 4 of 4

M/S.Mahesh Medical Store v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Mahesh Medical Store v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biswajit Saha Vs Bijoy Kumar Dash, I.A.S.

Sibananda Saha Vs Bijoy Kumar Dash, I.A.S.

Susama Tripathy Vs Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Cuttack

Pratichi Choudhury Vs Central Bank of India, Cuttack

Niranjana Panda Vs Sbi,Bbsr

Manoranjan Mishra Vs Manoj Kumar Pattnaik, C.E.O., O.C.a.C., Bbsr