Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 424 (CAL)

Bimal Kumar Raj v. State of West Bengal

2017-04-27

ARIJIT BANERJEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Leave is granted to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit. 2. The petitioner is the proprietor of Raj Nursing Home and Infertility Centre at Kharagpur, Paschim Medinipur. The petitioner contends that he had applied for renewal of the clinical establishments licence in respect of his nursing home. The petitioner did not hear anything from the authority regarding allowing or rejection of the application. However, a notice dated April 10, 2017 has been served on the petitioner by the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Paschim Medinipur recording that the petitioner’s application has been rejected because the same was not accompanied by necessary supporting documents. The petitioner has been asked to close down the nursing home. A further notice dated April 24, 2017 has been served on the petitioner on April 26, 2017 which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. By the said notice, the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Paschim Medinipur has called upon the petitioner to report compliance with the order dated April 10, 2017 regarding closing down the nursing home. Challenging the notice of closure, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice has been issued without complying with the provisions of Section 14 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 read with Section 23 thereof. Section 14 sub-Section (2) of the said Act of 2017 reads as follows:- “(2) The licensing authority may, before rejecting an application communicate to the applicant the deficiencies on the grounds of which the application can be rejected and issue him an improvement notice as per provision of section 23 directing him to rectify the deficiencies within such time as he may deem fit.” 4. Further, Section 14(4) of the said Act provides that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of showing cause in support of his application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no improvement notice as per Section 23 of the Act was served on the petitioner. No opportunity of showing cause was granted to the petitioner. Inter alia, on these grounds the petitioner challenges the notice of closure. 6. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned counsel for the State, submits that he has received a copy of the application only yesterday and he needs to obtain instruction in the matter. 7. No opportunity of showing cause was granted to the petitioner. Inter alia, on these grounds the petitioner challenges the notice of closure. 6. Mr. Sakya Sen, learned counsel for the State, submits that he has received a copy of the application only yesterday and he needs to obtain instruction in the matter. 7. I am satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner. There appears to be noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 14 read with Section 23 of the Act of 2017. Prima facie, it appears that principles of natural justice have been violated. The establishment concerned is a running nursing home. Hence, the balance of convenience is in favour of granting an interim protective order. 8. Accordingly, there will be an order in terms of prayers (d) and (e) of the writ petition. Further, there will also be a stay of operation of the notice dated April 24, 2017. This order shall be in force for a period of a week from date or until further orders, whichever is earlier. 9. Let the matter be listed before the Regular Bench on May 2, 2017. 10. Let a plain photocopy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the learned counsel for the parties, on usual undertaking.