Dismissed

M/s Mahaveer Charitable Trust v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Feb 2021WP/2097/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the State's entry into a MoU for a retail drug store after the petitioner failed to complete its own MoU within the stipulated period. The Court held that the petitioner's laches precluded relief necessary to cater to public health needs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

M/s Mahaveer Charitable Trust Vs The State of… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2097 OF 2021

¶6

Betwee n :

¶7

M/s. [t4ahaveer Charitable Trust, Rep. by its Founder & Chairman, Sri S. Mallikarjun, S/o. Shivappa, Aged about 49 Years, R/o. H.No.2-3-6218, Vepuri Geri, [t/ahabubnagar, l,4ahabubnagar District.

¶8

,..PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Health, tr/edical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad--- 500 022.

¶11

2 The Commissioner, Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, 2"" FIoor, DME Building, Dlt/ and HS Capus, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶12

3 The District l,4edical and Health Officer, Wanaparthy District. 4 The Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Atmakur, Wanaparthy District. 5 ldara lslamia lmadululoom Educational Charitable Trust,^{(Reg.No.2411412010)} Rep. by Sri [t4. Anees Ahmed, Sio. lV. Nazeer Ahmed,^{H.No.13-27,Shivaii} Nagar, Atmakur, Wanaparthy District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{India prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ, order of^{direction, preferablyone in the nature of writ} of Mandamus and to declare the action^{of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in entering} with Memorandum of Understand dI^{3Ot12l2O2Owith the 5th respondent for} establishment of^" JEEVANDHARA^{GENERIC RETAIL DRUG STORES" at Civil} Hospital, Atmakur, Wanaparthy, while^{the MemorandumofUnderstanding} dt. 2811112017 wilh the^{Petitioner'sTrust for the very same establishmentof} 'JEEVANDHARA GENERIC RETAIL DRUG STORES" at Civil^{Hospital, Atmakur'} Wanaparthy is existing as on^{today and without awaiting ratification orders fromthe} 2nd respondent and without^{issuingany notice to the petitioner'sand without} following any procedure, is as^{highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory} and also in violation of Art.^{14, 16 & 21 0f the constitutionof lndia and declare the} same as bad in law and selaside^{the same and consequently direct the respondents} to^permit the^{petitioneasTrust to execute it's Memorandum of Understanding}

¶15

dt. 28.11.2017 establishment of^{"JEEVANDHARAGENERICRETAILDRUG}

¶16

STORES" at Civil Hospital, Atmakur,^Wanaparthy.

¶17

IA NO: 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to direct} the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 not to make any further construction for establishment^of " JEEVANDHARA GENERIC RETAIL DRUG STORES" at Civil Hospital, Atmakur, Wanaparthy, pending disposal of the above writ^petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. W. RACHANA, S.C. FOR T.S. V.V.P. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI MOHAMMED NAYEEMUDDIN

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD}

¶25

WRIT PETITI ON NO .2097 0F²⁰²¹

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This writ petition is^{liled seekingto declare the actionof} respondent Nos.2 to^{4 inenteringMemorandum of} Understanding dated^{30.12.2O2O with sth respondent for} establishment^{of JeevandharaGenericRetailDrugStores at Civil} Hospital, Atmakur,^{Wanaparthl',while the Memorandumof} Understandrng^{dated 28'll.2O17 rvith the petitioner Trustfor} the very same^{establishmentof Jeevandhara Generic Retail Drug} Stores at Civil^{Hospital, Atmakur,Wanaparthyis existing as on} today and^{without awaitingratification orders from the2nd} respondent^{and without issuing any notice to the petitioner and} without following^{anyprocedure,asillegal' arbitrary'} unreasonable,^{discriminatory and also in violation of Articles14'} 16 and 21 of^{the Constitution of India and consequently direct} the respondents^{to permit the petitioner Trust to execute its} Memorandum^{ofUnderstanding dated 28'11'2017for} establishment^{of JeevandharaGenericRetail Drug stores at civil} Hospital, Atmakur,^WanaParthY'

¶28

The case^{of the petitioner,in brief is as follolr's:-} Proceedings The )t'rd respondent^lssued No.O97lHEC ]T.WPl2OlT,^{dated 2l'Og'20t7 invitingthe} petitioner Trust^{for establishment and setting up of Jeevandhara} Generic Retail^{Drug Storeson the application made by the} phitior", Trust^{and by letter dated 2'11'20\7' intimatedthe}

¶29

-t---

¶30

same to the^{petitioner for establishmentof Jeevandhara Generic} Retail Drug Stores^{at Civil Hospital,Atmakur,Wanaparthy'} Pursuant to the^{salne, thepetitionerTrustentered} Memorandum of^{Understanding with 4th respondent on} 28.11.2077 without^{there being any stipulated time for} construction^{ofJeevandharaGeneric Retail Drug Stores'}

¶31

The petitioner Trust^{made an applicationfor allotmentof} place in the Civil^{Hospital, Atmakur,Wanaparthl'lor} construction of Jeevandhara^{Generic Retail Drug Stores' In} pursuance of the said^{request, the authorities allotted 500 Sft to} the petitioner Trust.^{While so, delay was occurred in} construction of^{Jeevandhara Generic RetailDrug Stores,as the} 2'd respondent allotted^{other seven outletsin different Hospitals} in Mahaboobnagar District.^{The petitionerTrust initially started} construction of the^{Drug Stores inArea Hospitalsand} Community Health Centres;^{Likewise, the petitioner Trust} constructing all the^{outlets whichwere allotted to them'Now the} petitioner Trust took up construction^{of outlet in the premises} allotted to them at^{Civil Hospital, Atmakur, WanaparthyDistrict'} ln the meanwhile, the 3'a^{respondentissued a letter dated} i0.08.2020 to the petitioner Trust,^{directing to speed up the} construction work. After^{receivingthe said letter, the petitioner} Trust gave reply on 18.08.2020,^{stating that there was delay} happened only because of construction^{of other Hospitals such} as District Hospitals and CHC^{Hospital on priority.}

,/ ./

It is further^{caseof the petitionerthat 3'd respondent} 13.I 0.2020 and^{sent the same to 2"'1} issued Proceedings^dated respondent for^{ratification of order on the very same outlet'} which was allotted^{to the petitioner Trust at Civil Hospital'} Atmakur, Wanaparthy^{District' The 3'a respondent alsostated} that the^{Paper Notification was issued on 19'06'2020 inviting} applications^{from others. Without waiting for ratification orders} from the^{2nd respondent, all of a sudden' the 3'd respondent} enteredintoMemorandumolUnderstandingon3O,12.2o2owlth 5,h respondent,^{r,vhich is arbitrarl' and i'l1ega1'}

¶36

The respondents^{liled a counterand contendedthat the} petitioner^{was given one year period to complete the u'orkfrom} 28.11.2017^{lo 27.11} '2018'^{But the petitionereven after the said} date, though^{2 Yz} le€.rs^{elapsecl' has not completed the work and} therefore,hehasnolocustochallengetheactionofthe respondents^{and it has not fulfilled its part of obligation' The} petitioner has^{not explainedthe delay and that the respondents} cannot wait^{for the petitioner as the GenericDrugStoresare} meanttocatertheneedsofthepatients,whocannotbuythe medicines^{for excessprice in the market'}

¶37

Heard^{both sides}

¶38

The petitioner^{has not stated any cogentreasons ln lts} affidavit^{for not completingthe constructionof Jeevandhara} Generic^{Retail Drug Stores' Becauseof delay in constructionof} the said Generic^{Retail Drug Stores only' the 3'd respondent has}

¶39

¶40

¶41

entered into Memorandum of Understanding with 5th respondent for construction of Jeevandhara General Retail Drug Stores. The action of the petitioner Trust is not justified and it approached the court at a belated stage after entering into Memorandum of Understanding with respondent No.5. Therefore, this Court cannot grant an,\r reliel of rvrit of mandamus in favour of the petitioner Trust. The respondents cannot wait for the petitioner to complete the u'ork at his srr, eet u,illl lnore so u hen the Generic medicines are need of the day. But, for the laches on the part of the petitioner, it cannot throw blame on the respondents and try to seek the relief by way of a writ.

¶42

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT RE-GISTRAR //TRUE COPY/I G!) SECTION bTTICCR

¶44

¶45

To, 1. One CC to Sri C. Raja Sekhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for fu,4edical Health ind Family Welfare, Hign Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶46

One CC to Smt. W. Rachana, S.C. for T.S. V,V.P. (OPUC)

¶47

One CC to Sri Mohammed Nayeemuddin, Advocate (OPUC)

¶48

Two CD Copies.

IVP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210212021

ORDER

WP.No.2097 of 2021

1 H ta_ i4
3 19 FEB 2O2I
az
.<br>* *
-r

¶56

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

$ ,$,.l
- r{"'-"'x
)

M/s Mahaveer Charitable Trust v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Mahaveer Charitable Trust v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hazari Madan Mohan Vs The State of Telangana and

M. Mani Vs The Stale of Telangana

T. Rajender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

B. Samson Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Sara Achamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. M. Laxmi Eswaramma and another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others