The Allahabad High Court, in a scathing verdict, imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Saharanpur, for defying its earlier judicial order by denying the renewal of registration for Anaya Health Centre, despite an interim injunction from the Civil Court protecting the petitioner’s possession over the premises. The division bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh characterized the CMO's conduct as a deliberate disregard for judicial authority, stating: “The impugned administrative order has been passed not only in defiance to a judicial order (passed by this Court), but in meek compliance to the contrary administrative dictation offered by the Divisional Commissioner.”

The Court made it unequivocally clear that once a judicial order was served, the CMO was duty-bound to comply. “It was not for him to look the other way or to abide by a wrong administrative command, given by a superior administrative authority,” the bench held.

The dispute originated from a tenancy agreement executed by Arun Kumar Jain, the husband of Respondent No. 5, in favor of Petitioner No. 2, Dr. Anshul Gupta, to operate a medical establishment—Anaya Health Centre—at Bajoria Road, Saharanpur. The lease, valid until February 29, 2024, expired without renewal. However, the petitioner continued possession and secured registration of the medical establishment in May 2023, valid till April 30, 2024.

Subsequent to the lease’s expiration, Respondent No. 5 initiated eviction proceedings, while the petitioner obtained a temporary injunction in O.S. No. 307 of 2024. The injunction, unchallenged by the respondents, permitted the petitioner to retain possession upon monthly payments of ₹1,10,000 as occupation charges. Despite this, the petitioner’s renewal application for the medical center’s registration was objected to by the respondents, prompting intervention by the Divisional Commissioner, who instructed the CMO to deny renewal absent a subsisting rent agreement.

The CMO, relying on procedural requirements under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, rejected the application on June 22, 2024. This action was quashed by the High Court in its July 19, 2024, order, wherein it was held that the tenancy dispute was extraneous to the issue of registration renewal. The Court directed the CMO to pass a fresh order after hearing both parties.

However, instead of adhering to the judicial mandate, the CMO reiterated the same grounds for rejection, insisting on a valid rent agreement to comply with the procedural requirements of the online portal.

The Court decisively ruled that the CMO’s repeated reliance on the absence of a rent deed amounted to defiance of judicial orders. Emphasizing that the petitioner’s possession was protected under a subsisting injunction order, the Court held: “That done, it neither survives to the private respondent to continue to hold a belief that she may resist the renewal of the registration of the petitioner nor it ever became open to the State respondents to examine that issue any further.”

Rejecting the State's argument that adherence to portal guidelines was mandatory, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, reiterating that administrative guidelines are not statutory and cannot override judicial orders. It further observed that the portal’s procedural rigidity could not bar provisional or conditional renewal when judicial protection of possession existed.

The Court observed that the CMO’s actions amounted to “legal malafides,” stating: “The action taken by the CMO smacks of legal malafides. It is wholly unsustainable. It requires corrective action to be taken.” It condemned the CMO’s failure to differentiate between administrative procedures and judicial orders, describing it as an alarming overreach.

The Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the CMO, Saharanpur, directing recovery from his personal account. The amount is to be deposited in a District Magistrate-operated account for disbursal as minimal maintenance allowances to the most needy senior citizens in Saharanpur. The bench observed that the petitioner had been needlessly compelled to approach the Court twice due to the CMO’s deliberate non-compliance, necessitating punitive measures.

Case Title: Anaya Health Centre & Anr. v. State Of U.P. & Ors.

Case No: WRIT - C No. - 37004 of 2024

Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh