Delhi High Court
All India Medicos vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences ... on 29 November, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
Bench: V.K.Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 29.11.2013
+ W.P.(C) 7520/2013
ALL INDIA MEDICOS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv with
Mr Anil Kumar Verma and Ms Asha Rani,
Advs
Versus
ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Mehmood Pracha and Mr Sumit
Babbar and Mr Ajay Kalra, Advs for AIIMS
Mr Sunil Kumar and Mr Rajiv Ranjan Mishra,
Advs for respondent No. 3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral) The petitioner before this Court was granted a licence to run a chemist shop inside the premises of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for a period of two years with effect from 21.11.2011. Clause 1 of the Licence Deed executed between the parties provided that strictly on the basis of satisfactory performance, the term of the licence W.P.(C) No.7520/2013 Page 1 of 6 could be extended for a further period of one year. The petitioner, exercising the above-referred option available to him under the Licence Deed, sought extension of the licence for a further period of one year. Vide communication dated 18.11.2013, the petitioner was informed its request was considered, but was not accepted by Director, AIIMS and, therefore, the licence stands terminated from 21.11.2013. The aforesaid communication dated 18.11.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by way of W.P.(C) No. 7237 of 2013. It was noted by the Court that the impugned letter contained no reason, for not extending the licence and did not indicate that the option exercised by the petitioner to seek extension of the licence was considered. The writ petition, therefore, was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner for extension of the licence in terms of the provisions contained in the Licence Deed and pass an appropriate speaking order.
2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the respondent passed an order dated 25.11.2013, thereby again rejecting the request of the petitioner for extension of the licence and directed it to immediately stop transecting business from the aforesaid premises and vacate the said premises, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the W.P.(C) No.7520/2013 Page 2 of 6 order. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.
3. The impugned order, the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-
"And whereas, the institute authorities received a number of complaints from patients, apart from various adverse media reports and also found serious violation of the various terms and conditions of the said licence deed by the licensee, which included misbehaviour with the patients (a violation of clause 21 of the License deed) and accordingly and licensee was issued show cause notices also from time to time. The licensee was issued show cause notices on 16.8.2012, 16.10.2012, 12.3.2013, 13.6.2013, 6.7.2013 and 27.8.2013 and their replies were thoroughly examined by the monitoring committee of the Institute, which found allegations of violation of terms and conditions of the license deed true, and recommended various penal action against the licensee under clause 31 of the said license deed.
AND WHEREAS, vide order dated 28.2.2013, the institute also imposed penalties of Rs.5331/- (Rupees Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Only only), and Rs.6199/- (Rupees Six thousand One Hundred and Ninety Nine only), against the licensee. The Licensee was even found to temper with the complaint box, set up to receive complaint from patients thereby attempting to scuttle the very system of complaint redressal.
AND WHEREAS, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes, Delhi of Delhi Police, also asked for action taken report from the W.P.(C) No.7520/2013 Page 3 of 6 institute authorities, vide letter dated 9.7.2013 regarding malpractices of Licensee, intimating the institute about the registration of Criminal Case Under NDPS Act, involving transportation of banned drugs against the associates of one of the co-owner of the said licensee firm.
AND WHEREAS, the AIIMS being a prestigious medical institute of the country, such acts of the licensee not only violated the terms and conditions of the license deed but also brought disrepute to the image of the reputed institute in which general public has tremendous faith."
4. Clause 21 of the Licence Deed required the licensee to deal with the general public politely and not to conduct itself in such a way as to cause annoyance to anyone. According to the respondent, a number of complaints were received from the patients alleging misbehaviour by the licensee and, therefore, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner from time to time. During the course of hearing, receipt of the aforesaid show-cause notices dated 16.8.2012, 16.10.2012, 12.3.2013, 13.6.2013, 6.7.2013 and 27.8.2013 was not disputed. On account of violation of the terms of the Licence Deed, penalties were also imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 28.02.2013. It would be pertinent to note here that the order dated 28.02.2013 has not been filed by the petitioner. However, the imposition of penalty has been admitted in the communication dated 28.06.2013, sent by the petitioner to the W.P.(C) No.7520/2013 Page 4 of 6 respondent. The said orders were accepted by the petitioner and were not challenged.
According to the respondent, the petitioner was found to have tampered with the complaint box which was set up to receive complaints from the patients, thereby scuttling the complaints redressal system meant for the benefits of the patients. This was yet another instance of the unsatisfactory performance.
5. As would be seen from the Licence Deed, the term of the licence could be extended only if the licensor AIIMS was satisfied with the performance of the petitioner. The dissatisfaction of the licensor with the performance of the petitioner is evident from imposition of penalty vide order dated 28.02.2013 and the show-cause notices issued to the petitioner from time to time. It was for the licensor to evaluate the performance of the licensee and take a view with respect to the quality of the services rendered by it. The Court cannot go into the question as to whether the services performed by the petitioner were satisfactory or not and cannot substitute its own view for the view taken by the licensor in this regard, unless the view, so taken, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse in the sense that no reasonable person acting on the basis of the material available to him could have taken such a W.P.(C) No.7520/2013 Page 5 of 6 view. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the violations, alleged in the referred order dated 25.11.2013, the view taken by the licensor cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or perverse so as to call for interference by the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
NOVEMBER 29, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J.
BG
W.P.(C) No.7520/2013 Page 6 of 6