Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
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)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The questions involved in these appeals being common,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VINOD LAKHINA
Date: 2018.08.27
13:51:02 IST
Reason:
there being a minor variation in facts, they have been heard
1
together and are being disposed by a common order. Suffice
to observe, that in the limited nature of the controversy, we
propose to take notice of the facts only to the extent
necessary for purposes of the present order.
3. Both the appellants are lessees of the State Government
for the shop premises situated within the compound of the
District Hospital, Ujjain, Civil Hospital, Nagda, Khachrod,
Mahidpur, Badnagar etc. They have been asked in 2013 to
vacate the shop premises and shift from the Civil Hospital
compound. The justification is the formulation of a
Government Scheme i.e. Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nishulka
Aushadhi Vitaran Yojna for supply of free essential drugs to
all classes of patients by the Government. It is not in dispute
that the shop premises was constructed by the authorities
and does not fall in the category of an unauthorized
construction. It was settled with the appellants by open bid
in 2000/2001. The lease period has long since expired and
the lease has not been renewed.
2
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
notice to vacate the shops in the hospital premises is
arbitrary. No show cause notice with an opportunity to
convince the authorities not to order removal was provided.
Closure of the shop will infringe the fundamental rights of the
appellants under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The
supply of generic medicines by the State Government will not
be disturbed by the medicine shops being operated by the
appellants. The presence of the shops would only aid
availability of medicines to the patients.
5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
medicine shops were permitted at a time when patients had
to procure medicines on their own. With the advent of the
new scheme for supplies of medicines by the Government,
there exists no need for medicine shops within the hospital
premises. In fact, the shop premises can be better utilized to
facilitate supply of free medicines by the Government itself to
the patients. The lease has long expired and no steps have
been taken for renewal by the appellants.
3
6. We have considered the submissions. The laudable
objective of the Government to ensure availability of free
medicines to the patients in the civil hospital premises will
have to be balanced with the competing interests of the
appellants to earn their livelihood. If peaceful coexistence is
possible, there is no reason why the shop premises should be
shut down and the appellants be asked to vacate. The
respondents in their counter affidavit have acknowledged the
existence of a large number of medicine shops immediately
outside the premises of the government hospital, to contend
that it was sufficient to take care of the needs of patients. It
is but a tacit admission by the respondents, for the need to
have private medical shops in the vicinity for the convenience
of the patients. Without further speculation, it would
naturally be so for myriad reasons such as availability of
timely supplies, logistics, nature of medicines required, etc.
There can also be times when availability of a particular
brand medicine may be a compelling necessity without
awaiting government supply to be replenished. If for such
eventualities a private medical shop is countenanced by the
respondents at the gate of the hospital it is difficult to
4
appreciate their insistence for removal of the appellants. We
are, therefore, unable to sustain the notice directing the
appellants to vacate, and which in any event, has been
ordered without an opportunity to the appellants for
presenting their case and convincing the authorities not to
remove them.
7. The shop premises, as observed above, are not
unauthorized structures, but leases have long expired and no
steps have been taken by the appellants for renewal of their
leases. The rent was Rs.300400/. At the time of initial
settlement also, it was done with the appellants on the basis
of open bid. Considering the long passage of time since the
lease has expired, and the appellants cannot claim an
indefeasible right to continue irrespective of such
considerations, we deem it proper to observe that it shall be
open for the respondents to hold an open bid for the shops in
question inside the hospital premises. The appellants can
also participate in the same. Needless to say that the
settlement will have to be made with the highest bidder. The
present order cannot be construed as a complete embargo on
5
the respondents with regard to the shop premises for all
times to come. Any future eventuality, for justifiable reasons,
will always leave the authority a discretion for closure of the
shops for valid and germane reasons.
8. Till such fresh bids are held, the appellants shall not be
disturbed but shall continue to pay the enhanced rate of rent
in the manner provided for in the agreement with effect from
the date of the present order. If there are any arrears of rent,
it shall also be deposited at the agreed rate within a period of
four weeks. The impugned orders of the High Court are set
aside. The appeals are allowed.
…………...................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
…………...................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
…………...................J.
[K.M. JOSEPH]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 27, 2018
6