Dr. Gurram Devendar v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend Registration certificate No.4076, dated 03/06/2024 issued in favour of the 4th respondent on the name of petitioner hospital M/s. Aruna Multi Speciality Hospital, Hasthinapuram, Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Ranga Reddy District, pending finalization of the Writ Petition Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. JALLI KANAKAIAH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NARENDAR JALLI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI K.L.B. KUMAR Counsel for the ResPondent No.3:- The Court made the following: OROER l L{'l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA 1VRIT PETITION NO .22a67 0F 2024 ORDER: e complaint in this Writ Petition is, the 2nd respondent - District Medical & Health Officer is not taking any action for cancellation of Registration Certihcate No' 4076' dated 03.06.2O24 issued in favour of the 4th respondent, as it is against the provisions of the Allopathic Private Medicai Care Establishment Acl, 2002. It is stated, the 2nd respondent granted permission

2. to the 4ft respondent for establishing an Allopathic Private Medical Care lacility without verifying the existing Certificate of Registration, dated 09 .O2.2021 , in favour of petitioner's hospital - M/s Aruna Multispeciality Hospital. Petitioner claims to be a doctor in AYUSH Ayurvedic, established M/s Aruna Multi- speciality Hospital with the consent bf Dr' Ramesh Reddy Dubbaka and obtained Certificate of Registration from the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that certain partners retired from the hospital and during this period, the 4e respondent expressed interest in investing in the hospital, 1ab, and / ? pharmacy, therefore, an agreement was entered into allowing the 4e respondent to participate in the management' While so, the 4ft respondent allegedly insisted on conducting medical cases that were not permissibLe by the Medical & Health Department and also opposed the charging of high fees which led to differences between petitioner and the 4th respondent. Petitioner claims that the 4th respondent used his influence and muscle power to pressurize him to step dou'n from the management of the hospital' Petitioner, hence, set the need to obtain condition that the 4e respondent "r'ould registration from the 2"d respondent and return the investment made by him in the lab and pharmacy' Despite this, the 4th respondent alleged.ly influenced the 2"d respondent to obtain registration certificate in petitioner's hospital's name, dated 03.06.2024, impugned herein. It is also stated, the 2"d respondent without conducting any physical inspection and without 'No Objection Certificate' obtained from petitioner, issued registration certificate again in the name o[ M/s Aruna Multi-speciality Hospital and without cancelling the lirst registration certificate, which is valid till 08'02'2026, hence, \ \ 'l registration certiflcate issued in favour of the 4d respondent is illegal and should be cancelled. It is the further grievance of petitioner that the 4n respondent, in coliusion with other doctors, is conducting unethical and illegai activities, which are not permitted by the 2"d respondent for private estabiishments. Though, he brought this matter to the 2n'1 respondent's attention through representations dated 27.06.2024 and O8.08.2O24, requesting appropriate action / cancellation of registration certihcate, no action has been taken so far. Petitioner apprehends that if anything goes wrong, reputation of petitioner's hospital would be at stake and he would be held responsible for the illegal activities conducted by the 4th respondent. Hence. petitioner, it is stated, approached this Court for redressal.

3. The Secretary to Government in its Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department and the 2"d respondent District Medical & Health Officer, in one voice, state that in response to the representations received, petitioner was asked to appear before them, but he did not turn up. On enquiries, they came to know that petitioner sold M/s Aruna Multi-speciality hospitai to i i 4 the 4rt respondent by entering into an unregistered sale deed- cum-memorandum of understanding dated 15.04.2024 and received huge amounts from him. Thereafter, upon compi5ring with the a1l the requisites by the 4ft respondent, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned registration certificate and Medical Termination of Pregnancy Certifrcate dated 16.O7.2024, hence, there are no irregularities on the part of the 2"d respondent. It is further added that the office issued a new registration certilicate to the new management, i.e. the 4th respondent temporarily to run M/s Aruna Multi-speciality Hospital, located at H.No-8-6-746, Beside SBI Bank, Nagarjuna Colony, Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that earlier registration was duly cancelled, however, petitioner did not return the original registration certihcate, and no objections have been raised by him to this office.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is asserted that petitioner approached this Court with unclean halds, suppressing key facts and making baseless allegations. The 4ft respondent claims that petitioner is attempting to gain wrongful advantages through this petition, which is based on ) ) fabricated claims. It is stated that petitioner previously ran M/s Aruna Multi-specialty Hospital, with Certificate of Registration No. 2597, dated O5-O2-2O21 from the 2nd respondent. He denies the allegation that he pressurized petitioner to retire from management, claiming that he willingly entered into an agreement with the 4e respondent for the latter to invest in expanding the hospital, Iab, and pharmacy' According to the 4tr' respondent, petitioner invited him to participate in the management of the hospital as part of this agreement. The 4th respondent argues that no objection certilicate from petitioner was not necessary since he had legally-acquired the hospital through a sale agreement and that registration certificate was issued following proper inspection by the 2*d respondent. He further states that petitioner' an Ayurvedic practitioner, had purchased the hospital from its previous owner-Sri Chilkuru Prabhakar, through a deed of saie- clrm-memorandum of understanding dated O9-O5-2O22 and' obtained registration certificate lrom the 2"d respondent' but due to financial constraints, he offered to seil the hospital to ) ) 6 him (4tt' respondent) for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,OOO/-. The 4th respondent, it is stated, paid advance of Rs. 30 lacs on l5-O4-2O24 and subsequently paid remaining amount, including several additional payments to settle petitioner's outstanding dues with creditors and other parties, totalling Rs. | ,73,O2,5OO / -, which included various payments to creditors such as Mr. Sama Rajashekar Reddy, Janaiah & I(rishnaiah Pharmacy and others. It is also stated that the 4th respondent obtained fresh lease deed on Ia-O4-2O24 for the hospital premises and paid all outstanding rental dues. On 2a-O4-2O24, the 4fi respondent reopened the hospital and organized a grand inauguration with politicians and doctors in attendance. He also obtained necessary documents such as owner's self-deciaration and fresh agreements with the pharmacy and lab owners. According to the him, after saie of hospital, petitioner's rights over hospital were extinguished and no-objection certificate was no longer required for obtaining a new registration certificate. The 4fr respondent emphasizes that he approached the 2"4 respondent to obtain fresh registration certihcate for M/s Aruna Multi Specialty Hospital, which was issued on 03-06-2024 I 7 under Registration Certificate No. 4076. He also obtained various other necessary certificates, including Medical Termination of Pregnancy Certificate, certificate of registration for pharmacy and lab, service certificate for biomedicai waste removal, and license from Drugs Control Administration. The 4m respondent asserts that petitioner inten[ionally withheld transfer of original registration certificate to create litigation and that the requirement for 'No Objection Certiltcate from petitioner was not applicable since sale of hospital was complete. The 4th respondent argues that, as the sole proprietor of hospital, he is not bound by petitioner's involvement in its management. He also questions why petitioner did not lodge a complaint at that time if he was allegedly pressurized and he also failed to provide any documentary evidence to support the claim that hospital is being run illegally or unethically. It is complained that after selling the hospital, petitioner made several attempts to extract additional money but was unsuccessful; hence, he came up with false complaints and resorted to file this writ Petition with fabricated allegations in an attempt to damage reputation of the 4fr respondent I t I

5. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Jalli Narender, Iearned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health & Family Welfare land Sri K.L.B. Kumar, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

6. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the pleadings of the parties, it is to be seen that the primary issue in this case revolves around sale of hospital by petitioner to the 4* respondent and issuance of registration certificate to him. However, petitioner failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that hospital was not sold to the 4th respondent- Dxcept stating that he holds original certilicate of hospital permission in his name which is valid till 04.02.2026, he has not filed any proof to show tJ at the 4th respondent pressurized him to step down from the management of the hospital. On the contrary, the 4th respondent annexed copy of deed of sale-cum-Memorandum of Understanding dated

15.04.2024 entered into by and between petitioner as vendor and the 4th respondent as purchaser which discloses that the I latter agreed to purchase the hospital for Rs'1'50 crores and he had already paid Rs. 30 lacs towards part of sale consideration and the remaining to pay by 28.05.2024 ' The 4d' respondent also annexed the lease deed entered into with the owners of the premises on 18.04.2024 which would be in force for one year only, with rent /lease amount of Rs'3 lacs to be paid on or before 25th of every month. The counter-affidavit also contains the copies of labour licence, MTP certihcate and agreements with pharmacy and lab, etcetera. These documents clearly would go to show that the 4d respondent had purchased the hospital for a valid sale consideration. Further, the 2"d respondent in clear and categorical 7. terms, stated in their counter that upon receiving the representation of petitioner' they enquired into matter and called him to the office for taking further information, but he did not turn up to the notice / calls, hence, on their own' the 2"d respondent enquired into the matter and learnt from their records and also from the 4fi respondent that petitioner sold M/s Aruna Multi-speciality Hospital to the 4u' respondent by entering into an unregistered deed of sale-cum-Memorandum of \ \ t0 certificate b_v and land owners Understanding dated 15.04.2024 and received huge amounts for the same. When the 4th respondent applied for registration placing the said document and the relevant documents, the 3rd respondent District Medical & Health Officer verified the same; the 2nd respondent inspected the hospital also gave consent by entering into lease agreement for which petitioner stood as a witness; upon complying with all the requisites by the 4tL respondent, they issued Registrarion Certificate dated 03.06.2024 and Medical Termination of pregnancy Certificate dated 16.O2.2024, hence, there are no irregularities by Respondents 2 and 3 in not acting upon the representation of petitioner or in cancelling regrstration certilicate of the 4rh respondent against the said hospital.

8. In vier.r, of the above, it is to be construed that the 2"d respondent followed the procedure and issued registration certificate to the 4th respondent in compliance with the provisions of the Alropathic private Medical care Establishment Act, 2OO2 and petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of law or irregularity in the process. It is also to be noted that the / 1l 4,h respondent's claim that petitioner voluntarily sold hospital, hence, 'No Objection Certificate' from him was not required lor issuance of registration certificate is supported by the sale agreement and other documents submitted by the 4tl' respondent. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 9 costs. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No I O. Conscquently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed., //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSIS REGIS SE N OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. NARENDAR JALLI ,Advocate tqPUCl i. iil cc.i" -cF roH rr,rE-oiCriL'HeALiH nruo rnutlv wElrARE, Hish - Court tor tne State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [O-VIJ s. one Cc ti; Sni. k.t-. B. KU-MAR, Adv6cate [oPUc] 4. Two CD Copies BM GJP \ To, tr,v t ,t , a I $1 Se rA t I o 0 4 r:a 2[25 t c -I t HIGH COURT DATED:3010112025 ORDER WP.No.22867 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Gj# 9e- -n\"{"f