In a stern rebuke to administrative overreach, the Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹1 lakh fine on the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Saharanpur for defying a previous court order and denying the renewal of a medical establishment’s registration. The court criticized the officer for ignoring judicial directions and acting on “extraneous considerations,” calling the conduct “legally malafide.” The bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, directed the amount to be used for the welfare of needy senior citizens pending maintenance allowances in Saharanpur.
Case Background
The case arose from a writ petition filed by Anaya Health Centre and its proprietor, Dr. Anshul Gupta, challenging the CMO’s order dated 14/17 June 2024, which rejected the hospital’s renewal application. The petitioner had been running a medical establishment at Bajoria Road, Saharanpur under a 11-month rent agreement executed by the property owner’s husband, valid from April 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024.
After the rent agreement expired, a civil dispute ensued between Dr. Gupta and the property owner, Usha Gupta (respondent no. 5), leading to legal proceedings. Dr. Gupta approached the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur, in O.S. No. 307 of 2024, where the court issued a temporary injunction on February 23, 2024, protecting the petitioner’s possession of the premises. The injunction was confirmed on October 10, 2024, on the condition that Dr. Gupta would pay ₹1.1 lakh per month as charges for use and occupation.
Contention of Parties
The petitioner contended that the CMO’s rejection of renewal was illegal, arbitrary, and in direct contravention of the earlier High Court order dated July 19, 2024. In the said order, the High Court had categorically held that the civil dispute between the hospital proprietor and the property owner was irrelevant to the renewal of the hospital’s license.
The State and private respondents argued that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 and subsequent government guidelines required a valid rent agreement to renew the registration. They claimed that without a subsisting rent agreement, the hospital’s continued operation posed a risk of non-compliance with regulations.
The CMO rejected the application based on procedural guidelines that mandated uploading a valid rent agreement on the government’s online portal.
Court’s Observations
The High Court strongly condemned the CMO’s action, stating that the administrative authority had overstepped its jurisdiction by revisiting a matter already settled by the court. Justice Singh, while delivering the judgment, observed:
“It is fundamental to the rule of law that the injunction order granted by the civil Court must be given full effect. It has to be recognized, obeyed, and abided without any protest, except by seeking legal remedies thereagainst.”
The court also criticized the Divisional Commissioner’s note directing the CMO to deny the renewal, calling it an extraneous influence that should not have been considered after judicial intervention.
“The impugned administrative order has been passed not only in defiance to a judicial order but in meek compliance to the contrary administrative dictation offered by the Divisional Commissioner,” the court remarked.
The bench further noted that the online system’s procedural limitations could not override judicial orders or restrict statutory rights.
Judgment and Directions
The High Court quashed the CMO’s order dated 14/17 June 2024 and directed immediate renewal of Anaya Health Centre’s registration. The renewal, however, was made provisional and conditional on the outcome of the pending civil litigation:
1. O.S. No. 307 of 2024 (Anshul Gupta v. Usha Gupta) in the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur.
2. Eviction Application No. 2296 of 2024 (Usha Gupta v. Dr. Anshul Gupta) before the prescribed rent authority.
The court imposed a personal cost of ₹1 lakh on the CMO, Saharanpur, for violating judicial directions. The amount is to be deposited in a bank account operated by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, for disbursal to senior citizens awaiting maintenance allowances as per tribunal orders.
The court further directed that recovery of this fine be ensured from the CMO personally, and the money should be re-utilized for similar purposes after its disbursement.
