Difference between revisions of "Bharmal Medical Store Civil Hospital vs State of Madhya Pradesh and others 27 August, 2018"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 129900
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "'''CASE SUMMARY''' '''IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA''' '''CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION''' '''CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8590­8591 OF 2018''' (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14871...")
 
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 21:42, 23 May 2020

CASE SUMMARY

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8590­8591 OF 2018

(arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14871­14872 of 2015

BHARMAL MEDICAL STORE CIVIL HOSPITAL BADNAGAR ETC. (APPELLANT(S))

                                             VERSUS 

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (RESPONDENT(S))

     with

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8592 OF 2018

(arising out of SLP(C) No.21414 of 2015

APNA MEDICAZE (APPELLANT(S))

                                                 VERSUS 

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS (RESPONDENT(S))

(I) INTRODUCTION

Civil Appeal no. - 85908591 of 2018 Case no. - 1487114872 of 2015 Petitioner Name (1) - BHARMAL MEDICAL STORE CIVIL HOSPITAL BADNAGAR ETC. Petitioner Name (2) - APNA MEDICAZE Respondent Name - STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Bench - RANJAN GOGOI, NAVIN SINHA, K.M. JOSEPH Judgment- 21-08-2018

(II) FACTS OF THE CASE

There were two appellants i.e. Bharmal Medical Civil Hospital Badnagar Etc. and Apna Medicaze, both were lessees of the State Government for the shop premises situated within the complex of the District Hospital, Ujjain, Civil Hospital, Nagada, Khachrod, Mahidpur, Badnagar etc. The argument was for Government Scheme formulation i.e. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nishulka Aushadi Vitaran Yojana for free supply of essential drugs to all classes of patients by the Government. It is not disputed that the store premises were built by the authorities and do not fall under the category of unauthorised construction. It was resolved with the appellants through an open offer in 200/2001. The lease period has long since expired and the lease has not been renewed.

The appellant earned counsel submitted that the notice to vacate the shops in the hospital premises is inconsistent. They submitted that the closure of the shops shall lead to the infringement of the Fundamental Rights of the appellants under article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution Of India. It was stated that the medicine shops being operated by the appellants will not disturb the supply of generic medicines of the State Government. The presence of the shops would only aid the availability of medicines to the parties. The Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the medicine shops were permitted only when the patients have to purchase on their own. With the emergence of the new scheme for the free supply of medicines by the Government, then there was no requirement for the existence of medicine within the hospital premises. The lease had been long expired and no steps had been taken for the renewal by the appellants.

The appellants were of the view that the objective of the Government to ensure the free availability of the medicines to the patients of Civil Hospital premises can be balanced with the competing interests of the appellants to earn their livelihood. If there can be peaceful coexistence then there is no reason to vacate and shut down the shop premises. In the counter affidavit, the respondents accepted the existence of a large number of medicinal immediately outside the premises of the Civil hospital. The respondents, suggested appellants have private medicine stores in the locality for the convenience of the patients. It would naturally be helpful for various reasons such as availability of time supplies, logistics, nature of medicines required etc. The respondents were unable to support the notice ordering the appellants to vacate, and in any event, has been ordered without an opportunity for the appellants to present their case and convince the authorities nor to withdraw them.

(III) JUDGMENT

The above-observed shop premises were not unauthorised structure, but leases have long expired and since then no steps were taken for the renewal of their leases by the appellants. The rent was Rs. 3,00,400/-. After considering the long transit of time since the lease has expired, and the appellants cannot claim an annulled right to continue. It was observed that it shall be open for the respondents to hold an open bid for the stores in question inside the hospital site. The appellants can also participate in the same. The present order was not interpreted as a complete ban on the respondents with regard to the shop premises. Till the fresh bids were to be held, the appellants shall not be interrupted but shall continue to pay the enhanced rate of rent. The impugned orders of the High Court were set aside.

(IV) REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181730607/

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Bharmal-Medical-Store-Civil-Hospital-Badnagar-and-Others-Versus-State-of-Madhya-Pradesh-and-Others-2018-08-27