AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1-9-1998 (Annexure - P/8) whereby the petitioner was directed to close the shop No. 4 allotted by the Red Cross Society to the petitioner. The issue with regard to allotment of shops in the hospital premises came up for consideration before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.P. No. 2260 of 1991 (Ram Krishna Tiwari & Another v. State of M.P. & Another), wherein a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated 30-4-1997 (Annexure - P/4) observed as under :
2..By the Government order dated 17-2-1992 (Annexure R/5-1) such shop in the Government Hospital premises can only be allotted to the Super Market or to the Red Cross Society on the advise of the Hospital Advisory Committee. But in the present case, it appears that the Red Cross Society has passed on the said shop to a private person after inviting tender etc. Order (Annexure R/5-1) only permits the establishment of the shops in the Hospital premises either by the Super Market which runs by the Cooperative Society or the Red Cross Society, but there is no implicit sanction that the Red Cross Society can pass on to 3rd party. The Red Cross Society cannot further auction this shop in favour of any private party. It is a clear violation of direction contained in the Government order (Annexure R/5-1).
Further the High Court held as under :
3.. Be that as it may, the Government shall take immediate steps to see that as per the Government Order (Annexure R/5-1), shop should be run by Red Cross Society or by Super Market. The shop was given by Red Cross Society to a 3rd party is not contemplated in the Government order, therefore, the Government shall take necessary steps in accordance with law to enforce the order (Annexure R/5-1).
Relying on the observations made by the High Court, as aforestated, the State Government took a decision and issued the memo dated 13-2-1998 (Annexure - R/1) to all the Collectors, Chief Medical & Health Officers, Civil Surgeon-cum-Superintendent and District Hospitals that in view of the order passed by the High Court, if there is any shop except run by the Red Cross Society or Cooperative society in the hospital premises, the same may be closed. The said memo does not give the correct date i.e. 30.04.1997 passed in M.P. 2260/91, as the case was disposed of on 30.04.1997.
Indisputably, the shop of the petitioner was duly licenced, as granted by the Drugs Licencing Authority (Annexure - P/7). The shop in question was allotted on auction by the Red Cross Society as per the terms of the auction. The auction was held on 8-5-1990. Thereafter, an agreement was signed between the petitioner and the Red Cross Society on 29-3-1995 (Annexure - P/3) allotting the shop for 10 years on lease under clause 2 of the agreement i.e. from 1-1-1992 to 31-12-2001. However, there was a clause of automatic renewal after completion of 10 years of lease period.
The question for consideration in this petition is whether the State/respondents have understood the observations and order dated 30-4-1997 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in proper perspective.
On perusal of the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, it is manifest that the shops in the hospital premises would be allotted as per the circular of the Government to only the Super Markets run by the Cooperative Societies or Red Cross Society, not to individuals.
Indisputably, the disputed shop was not allotted to he petitioner directly from the Government, but from the Red Cross Society. The Red Cross Society, as has been held, is not authorized to allot the shop to a 3rd party.
The Government order dated 17-2-1992, which is a basic foundation of this petition also, was under consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 2260 of 1991 and the same has been explained, as aforestated. Thus, there is no reason to take any contrary view. The impugned order is in accordance with the observations made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
So far as grievance of the petitioner in respect of arbitrariness and discrimination is concerned, out of 11 shops only the shop of the petitioner has been closed.
The State Government is directed to apply the law in all cases and have fresh examination as to whether the shops were allotted by the Red Cross Society or run by the Super Markets for Cooperative Societies and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law and as per the observation made by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ram Krishna Tiwari (supra).
As a sequel, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.