JUDGMENT: AKIL KURESHI, J. -- This group of petitions involve identical questions of facts and law. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. All these petitions are filed on behalf of hospitals who have been, by a common order produced at Annexure-A to Special Civil Application No. 3983 of 2010, declared as hospitals in whose cases with effect from 1-4-2010 no cashless or reimbursement claim will be entertained by the respondent-Insurance Companies. 3. Facts as arising in Spl.C.A. No. 3983 of 2010 may be noticed. Petitioner is a hospital located in the city of Ahmedabad providing treatment for various kinds of ailments and diseases through number of doctors attached to the hospital. Until Annexure-A was passed, the petitioner hospital was recognized by the respondent-Insurance Companies for cashless as well as reimbursement of mediclaims. However, on the ground of certain alleged irregularities and malpractices detected in the insurance claims of the patients treated by the said hospital along with 15 other hospitals, the petitioner hospital was included in the list of hospitals in whose cases with effect from 1-4-2010, no cashless or reimbursement claim will be entertained. 4. It is not in dispute that before passing the said order, no show-cause notice or any form of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Facts are more or less similar in all the cases. 5. In response to the notice issued by us, the Insurance Companies have appeared and filed their replies. In the affidavit in reply dated 7th February, 2010, filed on behalf of respondent No.4, New India Assurance Company Ltd., it is stated, inter alia, that while processing the claims of settlement of the patients, Third Party Administrator (T.P.A. for short) detected certain irregularities and unfair practices committed by the petitioner. It is stated that there are discrepancies in the records. Patients were shown to have been admitted in the hospital when they were not and dates of discharge also in some cases did not tally. Upon verification, some of the doctors even withdrew the claims. Some individual cases of discrepancies have also been highlighted in the reply. Similar replies have been filed by other Insurance Companies also. 6. Patients were shown to have been admitted in the hospital when they were not and dates of discharge also in some cases did not tally. Upon verification, some of the doctors even withdrew the claims. Some individual cases of discrepancies have also been highlighted in the reply. Similar replies have been filed by other Insurance Companies also. 6. Further affidavit-in-reply came to be filed on 4th May, 2010 in which, it is inter alia, stated that the petitioner hospital and other similar hospitals have knowledge about the unfair practices and irregularities in mediclaim billing. These irregularities were brought to the notice of the hospitals, despite which such irregularities continued. Along with the said affidavit, minutes of the meeting dated 15th October, 2009 of the Officers of the Insurance Companies and T.P.As. has been produced. The minutes records that "during the interaction and discussion the following hospitals were identified unanimously and decided to issue notices to all such identified hospitals involved either in unfair practices or in dis-proposed bills of mediclaim". The respondents have also produced office note dated 16th March, 2010 along with said affidavit in which it is recorded that in the previous meeting, it was decided to issue notice of dispanelment of the hospitals. However, in order to avoid litigation, it if decided to keep these hospitals "on declined list of hospitals". 7. From the above, it can be seen that by the impugned order, the petitioners-hospitals have been dropped with effect from 1-4-2010 from the facilities of cashless and reimbursement claims. Admittedly, no show-cause notice or any other form of hearing is granted to the petitioners before such decision was taken by the respondents. 8. The respondents are Nationalized Insurance Companies. They are held to be 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution. Their actions therefore must conform to the requirements of fairness flowing from Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be denied that the impugned decision would adversely affect the petitioners. Before taking such decision, therefore, principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. At the time when the cost of medical treatment is spiraling, we can take judicial notice of the fact that more and more persons rely on insurance for medical treatment. It cannot be denied that the impugned decision would adversely affect the petitioners. Before taking such decision, therefore, principles of natural justice ought to have been followed. At the time when the cost of medical treatment is spiraling, we can take judicial notice of the fact that more and more persons rely on insurance for medical treatment. At such times, if a consortium of Nationalized Insurance Companies decide to debar a particular hospital from the facility of cashless or reimbursement claim policies, the same would have crippling effect on the hospital. Such a decision, therefore, cannot be taken unilaterally. 9. There is nothing on record to suggest that the respondents had issued any notice or disclosed any adverse materials to the petitioners before taking the final decision. The details of the materials in possession of the respondents are also not clearly forthcoming. In fact, as already noted, in the previous meeting, there was a view that notice should be issued. However, to avoid issuance of such notices, instead of depending the hospitals concerned, they were put "on declined list of hospitals". In effect, however, the result remains the same. Treatment that the patients would take in these hospitals would not qualify either for cashless policy or for reimbursement of the expenses. There is no outer time-limit for which this order would operate. The effect, therefore, will be that by the impugned order, the respondents have virtually, black-listed the petitioners-hospitals and such blacklisting would continue for an indefinite period. Such an action cannot be upheld in absence of any hearing whatsoever. 10. In the case of Southern Painters v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., AIR 1994 SC 1277 , the Apex Court observed as under : "The deletion of the appellant's name from the list of approved contractors on the ground that there were some vigilance report against it, could only be done consistent with and after the compliance of the principles of natural justice. That not having been done, it requires to be held that withholding of the tender form from the appellant was not justified. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition." In the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 620 , the Apex Court observed as under: "Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition." In the case of Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 620 , the Apex Court observed as under: "Indisputably, no notice had been given to the appellant of the proposal of blacklisting the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the State Government that there was no requirement in the rule of giving any prior notice before blacklisting any person. Insofar as the contention that there is no requirement specifically of giving any notice is concerned, the respondent is right. But it is an implied principle of the rule of law that any order having civil consequence should be passed only after following the principles of natural justice. It has to be realised that blacklisting any person in respect of business ventures has civil consequence for the future business of the person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express so, it is an elementary principle of natural justice that parties affected by any order should have right of being heard and making representations against the order. In that view of the matter, the last portion of the order insofar as it directs blacklisting of the appellant in respect of future contracts, cannot be sustained in law." 11. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-A insofar as the petitioners are concerned is quashed and set aside. Having done that, we at the same time cannot shut our eyes to the rising tendency of medical malpractices in insurance claims. It will, therefore, be open for the respondents to take a fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to meet with the allegations of irregularities and malpractices against them. For the said purpose, if the respondents so desire to proceed further, show-cause notice shall be issued to the concerned hospitals within a period of two weeks from today and after considering the representations of the petitioners, if made, pass appropriate order latest by 15th August, 2010. If such show-cause notices are issued within the time permitted, until final decision as mentioned above is taken, the petitioners shall not insist on acceptance of mediclaims of cashless or reimbursement for the treatment to the patients given after 1-4-2010, which shall be governed by the ultimate outcome of such exercise. If such show-cause notices are issued within the time permitted, until final decision as mentioned above is taken, the petitioners shall not insist on acceptance of mediclaims of cashless or reimbursement for the treatment to the patients given after 1-4-2010, which shall be governed by the ultimate outcome of such exercise. However, it is clarified that for the treatment to the patients given prior to 1-4-2010, the respondent-Insurance Companies shall continue to process the mediclaim and pay the same as found admissible under the Rules. It will also be open for the Insurance Companies, if so found appropriate, to require the petitioners to take such remedial measures as found necessary. 12. With the above observations and directions, the petitions are disposed of. No costs. (SBS) Petitions allowed.