Shadab Memorial Hospital V. UT of J&K and Anr.

WP(C)/287/2021

AI Insights

The case involves Shadab Memorial Hospital, which was requisitioned by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The hospital sought compensation for the requisitioned services and facilities, claiming that the compensation offered was inadequate and not in accordance with the statutory provisions. The respondents acknowledged the requisition but contested the amount of compensation, stating it was assessed based on the facilities and charges of similar hospitals. The court's decision focused on ensuring that the compensation is determined based on the actual rent or charges applicable to the requisitioned premises, as mandated by the Disaster Management Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 814810 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Disaster Management Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ALLA UD DIN GANAI; SHAILA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARIF
• Keywords: Compensation; Covid-19; Disaster Management; Nursing Home; Requisition
• Section: 66(1)(i)

Judgement Text

" S. No. 34 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH C0URT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP (C) No. 287/2021 c/w CCP(S) No. 389/2021 M/S Shadab Memorial Hospital …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Arif Sikander, Adv. Vs. UT of J&K and Anr. ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Alla ud Din Ganai, AAG with Ms. Shaila, Adv. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 05.12.2024 1. The petitioner-hospital has been registered by the Directorate of Health Services as a 24-Bedded Nursing Home. In Covid-19 pandemic, the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 22nd March, 2020 in exercise of powers vested in him under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 directed requisition of 20 beds of the petitioner-Nursing Home. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.05.2020 the respondent No.3 requisitioned the premises of the petitioner- Nursing Home along with staff and all resources. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.07.2020 the Chief Medical Officer, Shopian directed the cessation of the services in the petitioner nursing home. 2. The petitioner vide communication dated 22.06.2020 requested the Officer on Special Duty (OSD), Covid-19 District Shopian to pay compensation to the petitioner including the staff salary and consumables, electricity and water sanitation. In reference to the petitioner’s communication dated 22.06.2020, the Accounts Officer of Deputy Commissioner Shopian, vide communication dated 24.06.2020 asked the petitioner to furnish the salary statement of the employees, details of the bank accounts of the employees, bank statement and pay acquaintances rolls of the employees. It is stated that vide communication dated 30.06.2020, the OSD Covid-19 in response to the representation of the petitioner directed the Executive Engineer, R&B Shopian to depute the team along with Medical Superintendent, District Hospital Shopian to visit the petitioner-hospital and submit the detailed report but inspection was never carried out. The petitioner claims to have furnished all the details as sought by the Accounts Officer and requested the release of the salary of the staff at the earliest, vide letter dated 09.09.2020. The Medical Superintendent, Govt. SMHS Hospital, Srinagar vide letter dated 24.11.2020 informed the Chief Medical Officer, Shopian that before Covid-19 Pandemic, Rs. 500/- were being charged for 24 hours as rent of paid room having two beds, attached bathroom, wall mount oxygen facility and bedding facility but after the Covid- 19 Pandemic, the paid rooms were designated as isolation ward from March 2020. The petitioner has mentioned in detail the rates charged for the facilities being offered by the petitioner- hospital in para-12 of the petition. The petitioner was not paid any compensation which prompted the petitioner to file the present petition before this Court, on the ground that petitioner is entitled to payment of compensation in terms of Section 66 (1) (i) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. i.e. the petitioner is entitled to the payment of compensation at the rate of rent payable in respect of the said premises at the time of requisition of the hospital. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions upon the respondents to pay him compensation at the following rates; S. No Particulars Amount 01. Room rent 2500/day 02. Ward Charges 1500/day 03. ICU 5000/day 04. Theatre Charges 3500/day 05. Laparoscopic Charges 5000/day 3. The respondents have admitted so far as requisitioning of the petitioner- Nursing Home is concerned by submitting that initially the petitioner-Nursing Home was requisitioned only for 20 beds but thereafter whole premises was requisitioned w.e.f. 04.05.2020. The respondents have raised the dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner by submitting that the rent accrued on account of utilization of the services of the petitioner-hospital had been assessed by the rent assessment committee to the tune of Rs. 5,80,400/ and was subsequently paid to the petitioner. The rent has been assessed as per the provisions of the Act, after taking into consideration the communication from the Medical Superintendent, Govt. SMHS Hospital, Srinagar and recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer, Shopian. It is further stated that the rent projected by the petitioner is arbitrary as is evident from the communication of Medical Superintended Govt. SMHS Hospital, Srinagar because Rs. 500/- were being charged for the private rooms where the facilities like oxygen supply, hot and cold facilities were available and the private rooms there, were far better than the hospital of the petitioner in respect of the facilities and infrastructure. 4. Mr. Arif Sikander Mir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 3 has not assessed the compensation in accordance with Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, as it is obligatory on the part of the concerned authority to take into consideration the rent payable in respect of the premises. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards various self-serving documents placed on record in the form of the bills issued in favour of number of patients. 5. Per contra, Mr. Alla ud Din Ganai, learned AAG submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation as is being sought by the petitioner because the better hospitals with better facilities located in Srinagar were charging Rs. 500/- only per room, whereas the petitioner-hospital is situated in a far-flung area of Kashmir Division, as such, the present petition is misconceived, therefore deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard and perused the record. 7. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding the connected writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 919/2021 vide order dated 14.05.2024 has observed as under: 8. “From reading of the Section 66, it clearly transpires that the compensation to be paid to the interested person in respect of the premises requisitioned under Section 65 of the Act by the Competent Authority is required to be determined by taking into consideration the following factors:- (i) The rent payable in respect of premises i.e. if the requisitioned property at the time of or immediately prior thereto was being used for rental purposes, the authority shall take into consideration the rent which such property was fetching or (ii) If no rent was so payable, then the Competent Authority shall make an endeavor to find out the rent fetched by similar premises in the locality”. 8. In terms of Section 66 (1) (i) of the Act (supra), the compensation in respect of the requisitioned premises is to be paid by taking into consideration the rent payable in respect of the premises or if no rent is so payable, the rent payable for similar premises in the locality. 9. This is not in dispute that the petitioner-hospital was running its services and the same was requisitioned by the respondents during the Covid-19 Pandemic. Once the petitioner-hospital was functioning and its services were being utilized by the patients prior to Covid 19 Pandemic, the respondent No. 3 should have undertaken the exercise in terms of Section 66 (1) (i) of the Act (supra). The respondent No. 3 could or could not have accepted/approved the rent being charged by the petitioner while determining the compensation but at least respondent No. 3 should have taken into consideration the rent being charged by the petitioner. This court says so, as in terms of section 66(1)(i) of the Act (supra), the compensation is to be determined by taking into consideration the rent payable in respect of the premises. 10. This Court would not like to comment upon the rent/charges mentioned by the petitioner in the self-serving documents placed on record, as the consideration of the same falls within the domain of the respondent No.3. The Competent Authority can verify the authenticity or genuity of the documents by cross-checking the same with the statutory returns submitted by the petitioner. 11. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the following directions: a. The Competent Authority shall re-determine the compensation in respect of the premises of the petitioner requisitioned under Section 65 in accordance with Section 66 (1) (i) of the Act and while doing so, due opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner. b. The petitioner shall produce its income tax returns duly supported by the balance sheets, profit and loss accounts and list of annexures attached thereof before the Competent Authority. c. If the competent Authority arrives at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to more compensation than already paid, the same be paid in favour of the petitioner. 12. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Competent Authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order, provided the petitioner renders due assistance to the Competent Authority. 13. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, the contempt proceedings are closed. 14. Disposed of. (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 05.12.2024 Sakeena "