Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mescot Hospital And Research Centre ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 25 August, 2015
1
W.P.5574/15
Mescot Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
25/08/2015
Shri Amit Lahoti, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S.Rathore, PL for the respondents/State.
Heard.
Shri Lahoti undertakes to serve respondents No. 3 & 4 by Dasti. Steps within three days. PF for remaining respondents within same time, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court. Notices be issued for admission/final disposal/IR. Notices be made returnable on 7.9.2015.
Parties are heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned order dated 24.6.2015, earlier he filed W.P.No. 4044/2015. The said WP was not entertained because of availability of alternative and statutory remedy. In turn, petitioner preferred a detailed appeal running in 40 pages with relevant documents. The said appeal is rejected by appellate authority by impugned order dated 14.8.2015.
Criticizing this order, it is contended that the petitioner raised the ground about the flaw in the decision making 2 process. None of those grounds are considered in the appellate order. In para 6 merely conclusions are drawn that decision making process was flaw-less and principles of natural justice were followed. No reasons are given as to why the points raised in the appeal memo are not trustworthy. In addition, he submits that the entire proceedings were vitiated. The incident of death of girl had taken place on 26.1.2013. Soon after that the complainant lodged an FIR (Annexure P-3) on 9.2.2013. In the said FIR the complainant stated that her daughter was given proper treatment by the petitioner hospital. As an after thought after two years on 9.3.2015, the complaint (Annexure P-5) was filed. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the respondent No.4 on 10.4.2015. The said show cause notice was based on an enquiry report. Since enquiry report was not supplied along with show cause notice, petitioner demanded the enquiry report. The said report was supplied to him only on 15.4.2015. After perusing the enquiry report, petitioner submitted an application for transferring the matter for adjudication before some other authority. This application was filed on 26.4.2015. On 25.4.2015 the petitioner received the notice from the office of Collector whereby directing him to remain present before the said authority on 28.4.2015. This notice was also issued in relation to the same complaint preferred by respondent 3 No.5 herein. In turn, petitioner appeared before the Collector. The respondent No.4 by communication dated 6.5.2015 (Annexure P-14) directed the petitioner to remain present before the Collector on 12.5.2015.
By taking this court to this document Annexure P-14, Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that respondent No.4 has mentioned about petitioner's application by which he made a request for change of the enquiry officer/competent authority. On this aspect as per direction of Collector and respondent No.4 (Annexure P-14), he appeared before the Collector. The proceedings before the Collector continued upto 23.6.2015. By relying on page 213, it is submitted that Collector and District Magistrate gave a specific direction to respondent No.4 that the judicial proceedings and police proceedings are different. Hence, respondent No.4 was directed to decide the matter on merits at his own. Shri Lahoti, on the basis of aforesaid factual backdrop, contends that soon after receiving the enquiry report, the petitioner was directed to remain present before the Collector. Since the petitioner's application for change of authority was also pending, he could not submit his reply on merits. The Collector passed the said order on 23.6.2015 whereby respondent No.4 was directed to decide the matter on merits. The respondent No.4 on the very next day, i.e., 24.6.2015 passed the 4 impugned order which shows that the principles of natural justice were grossly violated. The petitioner was not given sufficient, adequate and reasonable opportunity to put-forth his defence.
Apart from this, he submits that the decision making process was vitiated/polluted and appellate authority has not applied its mind on the aforesaid aspect. It is submitted that a sizable number of staff is still engaged in the hospital. The OPD is also functioning.
Considering the aforesaid, as an interim measure, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner till next date of hearing.
Respondent No.4 shall produce the original record for the perusal of the Court. In addition, the Govt. counsel is directed to seek instructions in the matter.
List on 7.9.2015 on admission/IR/final disposal. Affidavit of service be filed.
Certified copy as per rules.
A typed copy of this order be given to State counsel.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge vv