Florence Hospital vs State on 17 January, 2025

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Florence Hospital vs State on 17 January, 2025

                                                                                     1



                                                                           Sr. 14`


HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
                            WP ( c) 133/2025
                             CM No.277/2025
                           Caveat No. 114/2025

Florence Hospital                               ....Petitioners.

                            Through:     Mr. Arif Sikender Mir, adv.
                                         With Asifa Rashid, adv.
                     v.
UT of J&K and ors                                       ....Respondents.
                           Through:      Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, ld Dy. Advocate
                     General.

Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani, Judge
                                   ORDER

17.01.2025

Caveat No. 114/2025
With the appearance of Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned Dy AG, on behalf of
caveator. Caveat stands discharged.

WP ( c) 133/2025, CM No. 277/2025

1. Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned Dy AG, who was already on caveat on
behalf of respondents accepts notice on their behalf in the main petition
as well as in the interim application. He is directed to file his
reply/objections positively by the next date of hearing.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner Mr. Arif Sikender Mir,
Advocate in respect of his prayer for the grant of interim relief. He
submitted that the impugned show cause notice dated 18.12.2024 as well
as the suspension order dated 11.01.2025, are bad under law for having
been issued in brazen violation of the principles of natural justice as well
as the relevant scheme i.e. Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan
Arogya Yojana, and the Rules/Guidelines framed under the same. The
learned counsel contended that two days show cause notice has
admittedly been issued by the respondents to the petitioner-hospital
which was served upon the petitioner-hospital after the stipulated period
and was replied by the petitioner-hospital but the respondents did not
2

consider the same. He further contended that the petitioner-hospital has
been rendering the patient care facilities to the best possible extent and
the allegations against the Hospital are unverified/unproved as the
petitioner-hospital has been condemned unheard in the matter. Learned
counsel submitted that the learned co-ordinate Benches of this Court in
similarly situated cases have already stayed penalty imposed by way of
De-Empanelment of hospitals, on the allegations of violations of the
norms of the scheme. Learned counsel has referred to two interim orders
passed by this court in WP(C) No. 1495/2023 and WP (C) No. 617/2023.
Learned counsel while placing reliance on an authoritative judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cited as Vishnu Traders vs. State
of Hiryana and ors 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 481 contended
that there is need for consistency of approach and uniformity in exercise
of judicial discretion respecting similar causes for achieving desirability
to eliminate occasions for grievance of discriminatory treatment.
Learned counsel further contended that so many patients from urban as
well as rural areas of the UT of J&K and whose cases have already been
processed under the relevant scheme have been badly suffering for
their proper treatments.

3. Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, learned counsel for the respondents, however in
rebuttal argued that the respondents have been receiving repeated
complaints against the petitioner-hospital in respect of receipt of out-of-
pocket money from the patients covered under the scheme and whose
cases have been entertained and processed by the petitioner-hospital.
Learned counsel contended that the respondents have acted in the matter
strictly in accordance with the Rules and Guidelines of the Scheme
especially relating to Hospital Empanelment and De-Empanelment and it
is totally denied that the respondents have proceeded under the old
redundant rules.

4. Learned counsel very vehemently contended that Ayushman Bharat
Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana is a social welfare policy of the
Government of India, which has been highly hailed by the public at
large as pertaining to the Health & Family Welfare of all the citizens of
the country. He further contended that the empanelled Hospitals playing
3

fraud with such Social Welfare Scheme, do not deserve any lenient view
and need to be strictly dealt with under law.

5. Perused the interim application supported with an affidavit. Also perused
the main petition and the copies of the documents enclosed with the
same, as annexures thereto.

6. Considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

7. List on 07.02.2025.

8. In the meantime, subject to any vacation or modification upon the
consideration of objections/arguments and till next date of hearing before
the bench, operation of the suspension order bearing No. 02 SHA,J&K of
2025 dated 11.01.2025 is kept in abeyance. However, the respondents
shall proceed with and finalize the disciplinary enquiry in connection
whereof the impugned show cause notice bearing No. SHA/AB-
PMJAY/JK/2024-25/8122-23 dated 18.12.2024 has already been issued
to the petitioner-hospital with the direction that respondents shall afford
fresh opportunity of two weeks to the petitioner-hospital for filing proper
reply to the impugned show cause notice in the interest of natural justice.

(Mohammad Yousuf Wani)
Judge

Srinagar
17.01.2025
Syed Ayaz Hussain Jalali
Secretary