Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1472 (CAL)

Arup Bandopadhyay v. The State of West Bengal

2011-12-02

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2011
Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated December 1, 2011 is questioning an order of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Hooghly dated November 23, 2011 (at p.31). Relevant parts of the order are quoted below: “As you are not able to show the adequate skill personnel required for your establishments, this was one of the important factors that led to the death of Debasish Chakraborty on 05.08.2010 in your establishment. In this context, the Clinical Establishment License under West Bengal Clinical Establishment Act’1950 of your unit (Registration No.907/ 2008-09 & Licence No.14/2010-11) is hereby cancelled with immediate effect.” Stating urgency, counsel for the petitioner has prayed for leave to move the petition as an unlisted motion. Leave was granted to obtain tender number and also to move the petition as an unlisted motion. Hence dispensing with the requirement of the rules concerning service of notice, I have entertained the petition for admission hearing. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for admission. By the impugned order the Chief Medical Officer of Health cancelled the petitioner’s registration and licence under the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 1950. The registration and licence has been cancelled on the grounds that the petitioner failed “to show the adequate skill personnel required for” his establishments. Counsel has argued that the documents produced with the petition will show that the decision has been taken without holding a “neutral inquiry,” – though the authority itself was of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case a “neutral inquiry” was needed. I do not think the ground argued by counsel is such that the petitioner should be permitted to avoid the statutory appellate forum. The registration and licence has been cancelled, presumably, under sub-s.(1) of s.5 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the section provides that against an order of cancellation of a registration and licence under sub-s.(1) of the section an appeal may be lodged with the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Department of Health and Family Welfare. In my opinion, instead of approaching the High Court under art.226, the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority. In my opinion, instead of approaching the High Court under art.226, the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority. Counsel has requested me to pass an interim order permitting the petitioner to carry on the business until he lodges an appeal against the order of cancellation of registration and licence. An interim order permitting the petitioner to carry on his business cannot be made to enable the petitioner to appeal against the impugned order. An interim order is to be made only in aid of the final relief in a pending case. When the petition itself is not entertainable, I cannot pass an interim order in aid of the final relief in an appeal that is yet to be filed. Whether there should be any interim order in the appeal is a question to be decided by the appellate authority, if he possesses power to pass it. His power cannot be exercised by the Writ Court even before an occasion arises for him to examine the question. For these reasons, I dismiss the petition saying that nothing herein shall prevent the petitioner from appealing against the impugned order in terms of sub-s.(2) of s.5 of the Act. The department is directed to give permanent number to the case at once. No costs.