ORDER : 1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs :- “7. The petitioners therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased:- “A. To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27.06.2020 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent No.1- AMC and be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.1- AMC to supply to the petitioners all the documents and the CCTV footage referred to and relied upon in the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020 and thereafter hear the petitioners and pass a fresh order; B. To stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 27.06.2020 (Annexure-1); C. To pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts of the present case are as under:- 2.1 That, by the Government Resolution dated 15.05.2020, the respondent No.2 the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department designated the petitioner No.1 as Covid Hospital with four beds and the respondent No.1 Municipal Commissioner also issued a requisition order dated 16.05.2020 under the provisions of the Epidemic Act and declared 42 hospitals as designated Covid-19 hospitals for isolation of Covid-19 cases. That, it was also stated in the said order that the private hospitals designated as Covid-19 hospitals shall provide 50% of the total number of beds in such hospitals for the patients to be referred to by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereafter referred to as “AMC” for short) and rest 50% shall be admitted and treated privately. The petitioner No.1 hospital was amongst 42 designated Covid-19 hospitals. That, by the communication dated 18.05.2020, the petitioner No.1 hospital requested to reconsider and revoke the decision for treating Covid-19 patients at Rajasthan Hospitals and permit the Rajasthan Hospitals to continue giving services to various general and superspeciality patients. That thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding came to be singed by the petitioner No.16 along with the respondent No.1 AMC. That, by the communication dated 18.05.2020, the petitioner No.1 hospital requested to reconsider and revoke the decision for treating Covid-19 patients at Rajasthan Hospitals and permit the Rajasthan Hospitals to continue giving services to various general and superspeciality patients. That thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding came to be singed by the petitioner No.16 along with the respondent No.1 AMC. As per the said MOU, the petitioner No.1 hospital was to provide 50% of the total 24 sanctioned beds in such hospital for patients to be referred to by the AMC and rest 50% were to be admitted and treated privately. 2.2 That, on 18.06.2020 at around 8.00PM, the Deputy Health Officer of the respondent No.1 AMC intimated to the petitioner hospital that one patient requiring ventilator is to be transferred in ICU on wheels to Rajasthan Hospital. The said patient was received by the respondent No.1 and it was found that the patient’s vitals were not recordable and there was no response to deep painful stimulation. While the emergency medical team of the petitioner No.1 hospital was attending the patient who was on the stretcher, the family members and relatives were shouting and using abusive language, due to which, it was difficult for the medical team to handle the patient. The patient could not be revived and was declared dead at 9.07PM. The family members and relatives of the patient were not providing the details of the patient and did not consent for postmortem of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 set up an inquiry commission on 19.06.2020 for an in-house inquiry in respect of the said incident and the said incident was also widely reported in the print media. 2.3 That, the respondent No.1 AMC issued a show cause notice dated 20.06.2020 to the petitioners and called upon the noticees to show cause within one day as to why the respondent No.1 AMC should not file a criminal complaint under Section 188 of the IPC for breach of the provisions of the Epidemic Act, Regulation of 2020 and the requisition order dated 16.05.2020 and why legal proceedings should not be initiated for committing willful breach and willful defiance of the orders passed by this Court. The petitioners were also called upon to show cause as to why the respondent No.1 AMC should not impose heavy penalty under Section 2 of the Act and Form-C issued under the Gujarat Nursing Home Registration Act should not be cancelled. The petitioner No.1 through its Medical Director addressed a letter dated 21.06.2020 to the Deputy Health Officer of the respondent No.1 AMC and requested that the incident report and the annexures thereto referred to in the show cause notice had not been supplied and the same be provided to the petitioners. Some of the noticees as well as trustees/members of the Board of Management of the petitioner No.1 Hospital also independently replied to the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020. Though the documents were not supplied by the respondent No.1 AMC despite several requests, the petitioners through their Advocate gave a detailed reply dated 26.06.2020 to the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020. It was stated that the said reply be treated as provisional reply as some important documents, i. e. incident report and annexures were not provided despite several reminder letters. That, by the impugned order dated 27.06.2020, the respondent No.1 imposed a penalty of Rs.25 Lacs upon the petitioner No.1 and further Rs.2 Lacs each on each of the other noticees including the petitioner Nos.2 to 16 under Section 2 of the Epidemic Act and further warned the petitioners that in future, if there is any breach of the MOU and if the impugned order is not complied with, then Form-C issued under the Gujarat Nursing Home Registration Act would be cancelled and a complaint would be filed under Section 3 of the Epidemic Act for the offence under Section 188 of the IPC. That, by the communication dated 02.07.2020, the petitioners requested the respondent No.1 AMC to review the action taken by the impugned order and to recall the show cause notice and withdraw the impugned order after giving due hearing to the petitioners. That, by the letter dated 29.07.2020, the petitioner No.1 hospital made a payment of fine of Rs.25 Lacs on “without prejudice basis and under protest” denying liability on its part. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have filed the present Special Civil Application. 3. The learned counsel Mr. That, by the letter dated 29.07.2020, the petitioner No.1 hospital made a payment of fine of Rs.25 Lacs on “without prejudice basis and under protest” denying liability on its part. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have filed the present Special Civil Application. 3. The learned counsel Mr. A.S. Vakil appearing for the petitioners submits that the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020 has given a period of only one day to give the reply by the noticees. He submits that no reasonable and adequate time was given to the petitioners to reply to the show cause notice. He further submits that the petitioners herein were not provided the relevant documents and annexures attached with the show cause notice and despite several reminders, the said documents were never provided by the respondent No.1 AMC. He submits that non-supply of the said documents severely prejudiced the petitioners as the same amounted to denial of fair opportunity to give a proper reply to the show cause notice and therefore, the same was in breach of the the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were not heard before passing of the impugned order and that the preliminary reply dated 26.06.2020 submitted by the petitioners has also not been considered in the impugned order. He submits that before imposing such huge penalty and holding the petitioners’ guilty, the respondent No.1 AMC ought to have provided a fair opportunity of hearing. He further submits that the documents sought to be relied upon by the respondent No.1 were never supplied to the petitioners. He further submits that the exercise conducted by the respondent No.1 AMC was de-hors the principles of natural justice and was in prejudice and biased manner. He submits that even otherwise, the Epidemic Act does not empower the respondent No.1 AMC to levy any penalty. He submits that the penalty contemplated is only in terms of Section 3 of the Epidemic Act, i. e. if an offence is committed under Section 188 of the IPC. Further, the fine under Section 188 of IPC can be only up to Rs.1000/-. He submits that the impugned order has relied upon Section 2 of the Act for levying the penalty. Further, the fine under Section 188 of IPC can be only up to Rs.1000/-. He submits that the impugned order has relied upon Section 2 of the Act for levying the penalty. The learned counsel submits that neither the provisions of the Epidemic Act, nor the Regulations of 2020 confer any power or authority upon the respondent No.1 AMC to impose or collect any amount by way of penalty, much less the huge amount of penalty as imposed by the impugned order. The impugned order is also in breach of the provisions of the Epidemic Act and Regulations of 2020. He further submits that no reasoning has been given for levy of penalty for such huge amount. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the Special Civil Application be allowed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Nandish Chudgar appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 AMC submits that considering the Covid situation prevalent at the relevant time and the private hospitals within the Ahmedabad limits declining to admit any Covid positive patient and provide requisite treatment, the Municipal Commissioner of the respondent No.1 AMC had passed a requisition order dated 16.05.2020 under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987 mandating the private hospitals in Ahmedabad to allocate and provide at least 50% of the total number of beds in the hospital for the patients to be referred to by the AMC. He submits that the petitioner hospital was not cooperating and was not demarcating 50% of total capacity of its beds and hence, a notice dated 19.05.2020 came to be issued by the Officer on Special Duty of AMC calling upon the petitioners to comply with the order dated 16.05.2020. The learned counsel further submits that the unfortunate incident had occurred on 18.06.2020 resulting in the death of a Covid-19 patient at the premises of the petitioner hospital. He submits that the said patient was initially transferred from Lifecare Hospital to Rajasthan Hospital due to worsening of the patient’s critical condition which required the patient to be put on ventilator. After conformity of the availability of the bed at Rajasthan Hospital, the patient was transported to the Rajasthan Hospital. He submits that the said patient was initially transferred from Lifecare Hospital to Rajasthan Hospital due to worsening of the patient’s critical condition which required the patient to be put on ventilator. After conformity of the availability of the bed at Rajasthan Hospital, the patient was transported to the Rajasthan Hospital. However, upon arrival, the security personnel at the petitioner hospital did not open the gate for approximately 20 minutes and that thereafter, there was an additional delay of 10-15 minutes for getting stretcher and admitting the patient. These incidents have been captured in the Cctv footage of the hospital premises. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner hospital did not allocate the requisite number of beds and did not cooperate with the municipal authority, which shows that the petitioners have approached the serious public health crisis with an alarming lack of urgency and responsibility and they have failed to fulfill the obligations of allocation of beds for Covid-19 treatment. He submits that there was a serious and flagrant lapse in the performance of the petitioners’ duty which led the respondent No.1 AMC to take immediate action against the petitioner hospital. Therefore, the respondent No.1 AMC initiated strict and immediate regulatory legal action against the petitioner hospital. He submits that on 27.06.2020, a police complaint was also lodged by the Health Officer of the respondent No.1 Corporation against the petitioner hospital under sections 34, 120(b) and 304(a) of the IPC. He further submits that because of hospital’s inaction, the patient met with tragic death. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed after due examination of necessary reports and evidences and considering the gravity of situation and the negligence on the part of the petitioner hospital to treat the said Covid-19 patient with delay. He submits that the impugned order is just, proper and the same is based on inquiry report and evidence. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order may not be interfered with and the Special Civil Application be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no hearing was given, nor reply filed by the petitioners was taken into account while passing the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that no hearing was given, nor reply filed by the petitioners was taken into account while passing the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.06.2020 shows that after recording the relevant facts, the respondent No.1 AMC has come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances, the action on the part of the petitioners was unwarranted and serious. The impugned order, without discussing the reply filed by the petitioners as well as without assigning any reason, has proceeded to impose the penalty under Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1987 . Further, the impugned order records that only nine trustees had filed their reply and that the petitioner No.1 and its management has not filed any reply to the show cause notice and that no reply was filed within the given time-limit. The said fact is factually incorrect as borne from the record. The petitioners had given the reply to the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020 on 26.06.2020, which had been duly received by the respondent No.1 AMC. The said fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 AMC. Further, in the present case, the show cause notice gives only one day’s time to the petitioners to give their reply. 7. It is trite law that every authority, which has the power to take punitive action, has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Any administrative action, which involves civil or criminal consequences, has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice. If there is a power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, it is also a duty to act judicially in the exercise of such power. The principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities and have to be followed by the decision making and adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice are a guarantee against any arbitrary action by the authority. The fundamental principle of natural justice is Audi Alteram Partem, which means that a person affected by administrative, judicial or quasi- judicial action must be heard before a decision is taken. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The fundamental principle of natural justice is Audi Alteram Partem, which means that a person affected by administrative, judicial or quasi- judicial action must be heard before a decision is taken. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice has provided for only one day time to the petitioners to give their reply to the allegations contained therein. Further, the reports as well as CCTV footage, on the basis of which the allegations are made and decision has been taken, have not been provided to the petitioners to effectively deal with the same. Further, the impugned order is also sans any reasoning in respect of the quantum of penalty imposed. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and reasons, the impugned order dated 27.06.2020 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.1 AMC is directed to supply the necessary documents as relied upon in the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020 to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioners shall thereafter file their reply to the show cause notice dated 20.06.2020 within a period of four weeks. The respondent No.1 shall thereafter give a personal hearing to all the noticees and pass a reasoned order dealing with all the contentions raised by the noticees in their reply as well as oral submissions within a period of four weeks after the date of hearing the noticees. The amount of Rs.25 Lacs, which was deposited under protest, shall be refunded to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. The Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed. The connected Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of.No order as to costs.