All India Medicos vs All India Institute Of Medical ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5546 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%
                                            Date of Decision: 29.11.2013

+      W.P.(C) 7520/2013

       ALL INDIA MEDICOS                           ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv with
                     Mr Anil Kumar Verma and Ms Asha Rani,
                     Advs

                          Versus

       ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS
                                                  ..... Respondent
                      Through: Mr Mehmood Pracha and Mr Sumit
                      Babbar and Mr Ajay Kalra, Advs for AIIMS
                      Mr Sunil Kumar and Mr Rajiv Ranjan Mishra,
                      Advs for respondent No. 3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                              JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner before this Court was granted a licence to run a

chemist shop inside the premises of All India Institute of Medical

Sciences (AIIMS) for a period of two years with effect from 21.11.2011.

Clause 1 of the Licence Deed executed between the parties provided that

strictly on the basis of satisfactory performance, the term of the licence

could be extended for a further period of one year. The petitioner,

exercising the above-referred option available to him under the Licence

Deed, sought extension of the licence for a further period of one year.

Vide communication dated 18.11.2013, the petitioner was informed its

request was considered, but was not accepted by Director, AIIMS and,

therefore, the licence stands terminated from 21.11.2013. The aforesaid

communication dated 18.11.2013 was challenged by the petitioner by

way of W.P.(C) No. 7237 of 2013. It was noted by the Court that the

impugned letter contained no reason, for not extending the licence and

did not indicate that the option exercised by the petitioner to seek

extension of the licence was considered. The writ petition, therefore,

was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the

request of the petitioner for extension of the licence in terms of the

provisions contained in the Licence Deed and pass an appropriate

speaking order.

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the

respondent passed an order dated 25.11.2013, thereby again rejecting

the request of the petitioner for extension of the licence and directed it to

immediately stop transecting business from the aforesaid premises and

vacate the said premises, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the

order. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before

this Court by way of this writ petition.

3. The impugned order, the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

"And whereas, the institute authorities received a number of complaints from patients, apart from various adverse media reports and also found serious violation of the various terms and conditions of the said licence deed by the licensee, which included misbehaviour with the patients (a violation of clause 21 of the License deed) and accordingly and licensee was issued show cause notices also from time to time. The licensee was issued show cause notices on 16.8.2012, 16.10.2012, 12.3.2013, 13.6.2013, 6.7.2013 and 27.8.2013 and their replies were thoroughly examined by the monitoring committee of the Institute, which found allegations of violation of terms and conditions of the license deed true, and recommended various penal action against the licensee under clause 31 of the said license deed.

AND WHEREAS, vide order dated 28.2.2013, the institute also imposed penalties of Rs.5331/- (Rupees Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Only only), and Rs.6199/- (Rupees Six thousand One Hundred and Ninety Nine only), against the licensee. The Licensee was even found to temper with the complaint box, set up to receive complaint from patients thereby attempting to scuttle the very system of complaint redressal.

AND WHEREAS, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crimes, Delhi of Delhi Police, also asked for action taken report from the

institute authorities, vide letter dated 9.7.2013 regarding malpractices of Licensee, intimating the institute about the registration of Criminal Case Under NDPS Act, involving transportation of banned drugs against the associates of one of the co-owner of the said licensee firm.

AND WHEREAS, the AIIMS being a prestigious medical institute of the country, such acts of the licensee not only violated the terms and conditions of the license deed but also brought disrepute to the image of the reputed institute in which general public has tremendous faith."

4. Clause 21 of the Licence Deed required the licensee to deal with

the general public politely and not to conduct itself in such a way as to

cause annoyance to anyone. According to the respondent, a number of

complaints were received from the patients alleging misbehaviour by the

licensee and, therefore, show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner

from time to time. During the course of hearing, receipt of the aforesaid

show-cause notices dated 16.8.2012, 16.10.2012, 12.3.2013, 13.6.2013,

6.7.2013 and 27.8.2013 was not disputed. On account of violation of

the terms of the Licence Deed, penalties were also imposed on the

petitioner vide order dated 28.02.2013. It would be pertinent to note

here that the order dated 28.02.2013 has not been filed by the petitioner.

However, the imposition of penalty has been admitted in the

communication dated 28.06.2013, sent by the petitioner to the

respondent. The said orders were accepted by the petitioner and were

not challenged.

According to the respondent, the petitioner was found to have

tampered with the complaint box which was set up to receive complaints

from the patients, thereby scuttling the complaints redressal system

meant for the benefits of the patients. This was yet another instance of

the unsatisfactory performance.

5. As would be seen from the Licence Deed, the term of the licence

could be extended only if the licensor AIIMS was satisfied with the

performance of the petitioner. The dissatisfaction of the licensor with

the performance of the petitioner is evident from imposition of penalty

vide order dated 28.02.2013 and the show-cause notices issued to the

petitioner from time to time. It was for the licensor to evaluate the

performance of the licensee and take a view with respect to the quality

of the services rendered by it. The Court cannot go into the question as

to whether the services performed by the petitioner were satisfactory or

not and cannot substitute its own view for the view taken by the licensor

in this regard, unless the view, so taken, is wholly arbitrary,

unreasonable and perverse in the sense that no reasonable person acting

on the basis of the material available to him could have taken such a

view. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the

violations, alleged in the referred order dated 25.11.2013, the view taken

by the licensor cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or perverse

so as to call for interference by the Court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

No order as to costs.

NOVEMBER 29, 2013                                         V.K. JAIN, J.
BG