IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10983 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Ashok Kumar Choudhary and Mr. Uday Kumar For the IGEMS: Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Mr.Rajiv Nayan Singh, Mr. Dwijendra Msra and Sanjay Kumar Singh For the State: Mr.Prashant Pratap, JC to GA-IX For S.H.S.: Mr.Sanjay Singh 5. 11.8.2008 The petitioner is a sub-contractor of firm M/s I.G.E. Medical System who along with its Chairman and Managing Director, are respondent nos.8 and 9. The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 12th June 2007 written by Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah directing the petitioner to close down the X-Ray unit which he was running in the Sadar hospital premises. The reason for that is also disclosed in the said communication. All it is that on visit of Members of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha Petitions Committee, the members found that in the Sadar hospital premises there was one government X- Ray unit working which used to charge Rs.45 per X-Ray and only that unit can be permitted to work and no other. The petitioner was threatened to remove his unit within 24 hours otherwise face legal consequences. The petitioner states that respondent no.8 aforesaid was entrusted with the task of setting up X-Ray units in every Sadar Hospital of the State by the Bihar State Health Society, respondent no.2, is a Society incorporated by the State of Bihar. The Bihar State Health Society has been entrusted by the State to arrange for hospital services at all levels on behalf of State. They authorized respondent no.8 to set up the X-Ray units and operate the same either by themselves or through 2 sub.contractor like the petitioner. In the said agreement it is also provided that the District Magistrate would help and provide security to such persons. The agreement also specifies the rate that would be charged. There is no dispute with regard to rates being charged. On behalf of the State a counter affidavit has been filed by the Civil Surgeon, who is respondent no.5. The Bihar State Health Society, who is respondent no.2, has also filed a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no.8. The respondent no.2 and the respondent no.8 support the petitioner and oppose the action by the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon. The Civil Surgeon in his counter affidavit has merely stated that the Petitions Committee of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha found three X- Ray units installed and working in the Sadar Hospital. One is run by the government, the other is run by Lions Club and third is of respondent no.8 runs by the petitioner. The said Committee was of the opinion that there should be only one unit and it is because of that the District Magistrate ordered the removal of the petitioner which was communicated by the Civil Surgeon by the impugned letter. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. As pleadings are complete, with the consent of the respective parties the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The facts noted depict a very sorry state of affair. It appears that the State Government at the highest level took a decision to incorporate the Bihar State Health Society and to entrust it with the job .of improving health services to the common man in the State without 3 incurring cost by the State or without creating obligation for the State in this regard. The decision was taken to see that all who were associated with the health centers including Sadar Hospital are to help in this endeavour. With this object in mind Bihar State Health Society works on district level forming District Health Society of which the District Magistrate-cum-Collector is the Chairman and the Civil Surgeon is the Secretary. Works entrusted after selection by the Bihar State Health Society at district level are to be monitored and supervised by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector and the Civil Surgeon. They are responsible for seeing that the arrangement which is being made by the Bihar State Health Society is implemented properly and effectively for the advantage of and for the benefit of common masses. From the above scheme it would be seen that it is the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon who are responsible for proper implementation of the scheme and are fully conversant with the same but regrettably both senior officials of the Bihar have totally abdicated their responsibility and acted as if they are unaware of what was going on under their own nose and under their own authority. It is a matter of great regret to note the said behaviour of the responsible officer, consequence of their action is that masses suffer. When the State Government has propounded the scheme pursuant whereof agreements have been entered into with the parties, those agreements are sacrosanct for the State. Thus, the agreements cannot be brushed aside by any one more so by the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon, who under the same very agreement are duty bound to see its proper implementation. This court finds the attitude of 4 the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon in this regard as callous. They act as if they were unaware of such agreement and they are foreigners thereto whereas the truth is totally otherwise. They are purposely ignoring the scheme of the agreement and in fact they have chosen to be ignorant of it which is malafide. In fact they have no authority to order ouster of the petitioner from Sadar Hospital premises. With due respect to the Members of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha Petitions Committee, apparently they ordered so because of failure on the part of the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon to inform them of the legal status of the petitioner. They would not have acted otherwise than out of ignorance thanks to the District Magistrate and the Civil Surgeon. The agreement clearly gives a right to the petitioner being sub.contractor of respondent no.8 to set up, establish and run X-Ray unit in the Sadar Hospital and fee to be charged by them as incorporated in the agreement. Neither the District Magistrate nor the Civil Surgeon had the authority to cancel the same or act in contravention thereof rather, as noticed above, they are part and parcel of the scheme and must act to preserve the agreement rather than to destroy the same. Thus, notice issued by the Civil Surgeon on the direction of the District Magistrate is wholly without jurisdiction. It is de hors the agreement. It cannot be justified either in fact or in law. It is patently arbitrary. It is liable to be quashed and is quashed as such. The writ petition, thus, stands allowed. Md.S. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)