CWP No.20656 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.20656 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.12.2011 Oxfor Hospital Private Limited through its Managing Director, Dr. S.P.S. Grover, 305, Lajpat Nagar, near Nakodar Chowk, Jalandhar. ... Petitioner Versus Bhai Ghanahya Trust through its Chief Executive Officer, Head Office, in o/o Registrar Cooperative Societies Punjab, 17-Bays Building Sector 17, Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith release the payments outstanding in favour of the petitioner-hospital in terms of the bills presented to the 2nd respondent (Annexure P-23). The payments were held back when the petitioner-hospital had been removed from the CWP No.20656 of 2010 (O&M) [2] panel of hospitals under Bhai Ghanhya Sehat Sewa Scheme. It is not now denied that the decision has been recalled and the 1st respondent has withdrawn the order removing the petitioner from the panel. 2. At the previous hearing, I had asked the counsel for the Insurance Company to take appropriate instructions as to why the Insurance Company was not releasing to the petitioner the expenses incurred by it and in respect of which bills had also been presented. The counsel Sh. Anil Sharma states on instructions that the recommendation must come from the 2nd respondent and if the decision is taken by the 2nd respondent, they are prepared to make payments. 3. Although the 2nd respondent has been served, no one has appeared on behalf of the 2nd respondent. I find that there exists no justification at all for denying to the petitioner the payments. I direct the 2nd respondent through this order to require the Insurance Company to release the amounts covered through the bills and which have been submitted to the 2nd respondent. The same shall be done within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, if the 2nd respondent does not take such a decision, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall make the payments referred to in Annuexre P-23, after securing proper indemnity for any defect in the bills. This becomes necessary only because there is no representation for the 2nd respondent and this Court has no means checking the correctness of the bills, which are brought before this Court as pending legitimate claims of the petitioner. 4. The counsel for the petitioner also states that there is an obligation on the part of the 2nd respondent to make the payment within a period of 7 days from the date when the bills were presented. According to him, after the order of removal CWP No.20656 of 2010 (O&M) [3] from the panel was set aside and communicated on 5th October, 2009, there was no justification for still denying to the petitioner the payments, which the petitioner was entitled to. The 2nd respondent shall be liable also for interest @ 9% from the above date till the amount is secured in favour of the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. NOVEMBER 02, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE