NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8590­8591 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14871­14872 of 2015)

BHARMAL MEDICAL STORE  CIVIL HOSPITAL BADNAGAR ETC. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS  

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  AND OTHERS      ….RESPONDENT(S)

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8592 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No.21414 of 2015

APNA MEDICAZE ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS  

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH  AND OTHERS       ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The questions involved in these appeals being common,

there being a minor variation in facts, they have been heard

1

together and are being disposed by a common order.   Suffice

to observe, that in the limited nature of the controversy, we

propose to take notice of the facts only to the extent

necessary for purposes of the present order.

3. Both the appellants are lessees of the State Government

for the shop premises situated within the compound of the

District  Hospital, Ujjain, Civil Hospital, Nagda, Khachrod,

Mahidpur, Badnagar etc.   They have been asked in 2013 to

vacate the shop premises and shift from the Civil  Hospital

compound.   The justification is the formulation of a

Government Scheme i.e.  Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Nishulka

Aushadhi Vitaran Yojna  for supply of free essential drugs to

all classes of patients by the Government.  It is not in dispute

that the shop premises was constructed by the authorities

and does not fall in the category of an unauthorized

construction.  It was settled with the appellants by open bid

in 2000/2001.   The lease period has long since expired and

the lease has not been renewed.

2

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the

notice to vacate the shops in the hospital premises is

arbitrary.   No show cause notice with an opportunity to

convince the authorities not to order removal was provided.

Closure of the shop will infringe the fundamental rights of the

appellants  under  Article  19(1)(g) of the  Constitution.  The

supply of generic medicines by the State Government will not

be disturbed by the medicine shops being operated by the

appellants. The presence of the shops would only aid

availability of medicines to the patients.  

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the

medicine shops were permitted at a time when patients had

to procure medicines on their own.   With the advent of the

new scheme for supplies of  medicines by the Government,

there exists no need for medicine shops within the hospital

premises.  In fact, the shop premises can be better utilized to

facilitate supply of free medicines by the Government itself to

the patients.   The lease has long expired and no steps have

been taken for renewal by the appellants.

3

6. We have considered the submissions.   The laudable

objective of the  Government to ensure availability of free

medicines to the patients in the civil hospital premises will

have to be balanced with the competing interests of the

appellants to earn their livelihood.  If peaceful coexistence is

possible, there is no reason why the shop premises should be

shut down and the appellants be asked to vacate. The

respondents in their counter affidavit have acknowledged the

existence of a large number of medicine shops immediately

outside the premises of the government hospital, to contend

that it was sufficient to take care of the needs of patients.  It

is but a tacit admission by the respondents, for the need to

have private medical shops in the vicinity for the convenience

of the patients.   Without further speculation, it would

naturally  be  so for  myriad reasons  such  as  availability  of

timely supplies, logistics, nature of medicines required, etc.

There can also be times  when availability of a particular

brand medicine may be a compelling necessity without

awaiting government supply to be replenished.   If for such

eventualities a private medical shop is countenanced by the

respondents at the gate of the hospital it is difficult to

4

appreciate their insistence for removal of the appellants.  We

are, therefore, unable to sustain the notice directing the

appellants to vacate, and which in any event, has been

ordered without an opportunity to the appellants for

presenting their case and convincing the authorities not to

remove them.

7. The shop premises, as observed above, are not

unauthorized structures, but leases have long expired and no

steps have been taken by the appellants for renewal of their

leases.   The rent was Rs.300­400/­.   At the time of  initial

settlement also, it was done with the appellants on the basis

of open bid.   Considering the long passage of time since the

lease has expired, and the appellants cannot claim an

indefeasible right to continue irrespective of such

considerations, we deem it proper to observe that it shall be

open for the respondents to hold an open bid for the shops in

question  inside the hospital  premises.  The appellants can

also participate in the same.   Needless to say that the

settlement will have to be made with the highest bidder.  The

present order cannot be construed as a complete embargo on

5

the respondents  with regard to the shop  premises for all

times to come.  Any future eventuality, for justifiable reasons,

will always leave the authority a discretion for closure of the

shops for valid and germane reasons.   

8. Till such fresh bids are held, the appellants shall not be

disturbed but shall continue to pay the enhanced rate of rent

in the manner provided for in the agreement with effect from

the date of the present order.  If there are any arrears of rent,

it shall also be deposited at the agreed rate within a period of

four weeks.   The impugned orders of the High Court are set

aside.  The appeals are allowed.

…………...................J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

…………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA]

…………...................J. [K.M. JOSEPH]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 27, 2018

6