Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan V. Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue New Delhi And Others

/78/2023

AI Insights

Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan sought a review of a judgment that set aside the order of the Settlement Commission concerning his involvement with Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. and other entities. The original writ petition, filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), challenged the Settlement Commission's decision, which was perceived to have favored the private entities involved. The High Court's judgment included observations about Dr. Sachan's dual roles as a professor at King George Medical University and a director in private entities, which allegedly violated the rules against private practice for state university doctors. Dr. Sachan argued that the remarks in the judgment were defamatory and requested their expunction, claiming he was not given an opportunity to be heard in the original proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693778 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Review Application; Settlement commission; Writ petition; Private practice; Non-practicing allowance

Judgement Text

"Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:57090-DB Court No. - 17 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 78 of 2023 Applicant :- Dr. Amod Kumar Sachan Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry Of Finance, Deptt. Of Revenue New Delhi And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the review applicant. 3. By means of the present application, the applicant has sought leave of this Court for review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ T ax No.208 of 2017 passed on 06.02.2023. He has also sought leave for filing of the said application along with application for condonation of delay. 4. With regard to the condonation of delay, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he came to know about the judgment dated 06.02.2023 only when he received notice from the University and he was not aware of the proceedings prior to that. 5. The grounds has sufficiently been explained. 6. The delay in filing the review application/petition is condoned. 7. Leave as sought is granted. The application is allowed. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that writ petition was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income T ax (Central) assailing order of Settlement Commission. The order of Settlement Commission was passed on an application preferred by Ms. Richa Mishra, Shri Balaji Charitable Trust and M/s. Shekhar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. This Court has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of Settlement Commission. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, para nos.42 and 43 are offending to the applicant and certain observations have been made against him. Paras 42 and 43 of the said judgment are reproduced as under : \"42. It has also been brought on record that Dr. A. K. Sachan is a Doctor working as Professor in King Georges Medical University, Lucknow. This fact has come on record as well as in the report submitted by the Commissioner of Income Tax. It is surprising that a person working in a State University is a Director of a private entity and despite huge amounts of money have been found in his personal account including cash during search operations, no action has been taken by his employer which is a State entity. The conduct rules pertaining to government servant and even those employed in public corporation/utilities are not permitted to indulge in private practice unless there is specific rule or provisions in this regard. This Court has been informed that the Doctors of King Georges Medical University are entitled to non- practicing allowance and further that there is bar from private practice which clearly indicates that they cannot work anywhere except for the University where they are appointed. 43. This Court takes a very serious view of the facts placed before it and it is expected that the university concerned and the State Government shall make due inquiries and proceed appropriately against such individuals who are found indulged in blatant private practice and making profits in private companies and also being on their Boards as Directors. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Government of U.P and the Vice Chancellor of King George Medical University, Lucknow by the Senior Registrar of this Court for compliance.\" 9. It is submitted by learned counsel for the review applicant that certain aspersions have been cast upon the applicant which deserves to be expunged. He has further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant nor he was party in the said petition. Consequently, the applicant has made prayer for expunction of remarks. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs would indicate that this Court had taken into account the facts which were available on record with regard to the applicant, where huge amount of money was found in his personal account, which fact is admitted even by the respondents of the writ petition. Before the Settlement Commission, the account of Dr. A.K. Sachan was also examined and the relief sought with regard to the money in account was also examined and it was held that the same belonged to the Trust. A perusal of the above quoted paragraphs indicate that no aspersions have been cast upon the applicant and this Court had only taken into account the fact that the applicant is working as a Professor in King George Medical University, Lucknow. It is also not disputed that previously, he was, in fact the Director of various Trusts, as Form 32 as been enclosed along with supplementary affidavit filed today which indicate that he was working as Director Shekhar Hospital Private Ltd. However, the facts considered by this Court are not disputed inasmuch as the Doctors working in the State Medical University are not entitled to indulge in private practice. In para 43 of the judgment, this Court has passed general directions, inasmuch as such Doctors are not entitled for private practice and in lieu are entitled to receive non-practicing allowance, and therefore further directions have been issued to proceed against such persons who violate the rules framed in this regard by the State Government. The above directions are general in nature, and only to see that provisions of law are complied. Accordingly, no person can be aggrieved by such directions. 11. In this present case, we have been informed that notices have been issued to the applicant and action, if any, shall be taken on the basis of the reply submitted by him and if it is found that he has contravened any provisions to any Rule or law, then only the proceedings shall be initiated against the applicant and other similarly situated persons. 12. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that firstly no aspersions or adverse remarks have been made against the applicant. The facts as enumerated in the writ petition were duly considered by this court based on material on record and considering the other directions which have been issued relate to the facts in issue, which have cropped up in this matter and therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, no ground for review is made out. 13. The application filed for review of judgment and order dated 06.02.2023 is, accordingly, rejected. . (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 25.8.2023 Pks Digitally signed by :- POOJA KHANNA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "