IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10568 of 2010 DR.MURLIDHAR JAISWAL, S/O LATE PARSURAM JAISWAL, R/O LOHACHI, P.S.KHARAGPUR, DISTT-MUNGER. SECRETARY, SUMITRA HOSPITAL, KHARAGPUR, MUNGER. ........PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. STATE HEALTH SOCIETY PARIVAR KALYAN BHAWAN SHEIKHPURA, PATNA 3. CIVIL SURGEON, MUNGER, AT SADAR HOSPITAL CAMPUS, MUNGER 4. PROGRAMME MANAGER, DISTRICT HEALTH SOCIETY, MUNGER…………………………………………RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Prabhat Bharti, AC to GP-2 ----------- 05 06.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing letter no.267 dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure-4) issued by Civil Surgeon, Munger (respondent no.3) by which the Bank Guarantee was returned to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the Secretary of Sumitra Hospital, Lohchi Kharagpur (Munger) organized by Marshi Mehi Education and Health Society Khagaria in which there are qualified doctors, operation theatre and modern equipments for various types of operation. It is further stated that an advertisement was published on 06.03.2008 in the Dainik Jagaran newspaper by the respondents offering private nursing homes/clinics for - 2 - conducting family planning operations, whereafter vide letter dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure-2) the petitioner was directed to deposit Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,000.00 for the said purpose and the petitioner deposited the said Bank Guarantee and organized family planning on three dates i.e. 26.11.2008, 04.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 on which date government doctors were present when 17, 41 and 21 ladies were operated (Annexure-3). He further states that surprisingly enough instead of payment of due amount the Bank Guarantee was returned on 12.06.2009 to the petitioner with letter dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure-4) issued by Civil Surgeon, Munger (respondent no.3). Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner’s hospital was fully functional and thereafter considering the facilities therein letter dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure-2) was issued for directing the petitioner to deposit the Bank Guarantee of Rs.50,000.00. Hence he claims that there was no occasion for issuing the impugned letter dated 12.06.2009 (Anneuxre-4). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner’s hospital was never found fit for family planning operation and after issuance of letter dated 27.08.2008 (Anneuxre-2) inspection was made on 20.11.2008 by Dr. Rajiv Ranjan (Surgeon) and Dr. Vijay Kumar (Anaesthetist) of Quality Assurance Committee of Munger District who found that the Surgeon, Anaesthetist, and staff nurses were not available in petitioner’s hospital, which - 3 - was not fit for Tubectomy. Accordingly, report dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure-B) was submitted. It is further stated that District Collector is Chairperson of the Quality Assurance Committee of the district level and thereby on the approval of the Collector, Munger on 03.06.2009 (Annexure-C) the Bank Guarantee of the petitioner’s hospital was retuned by District Health Society, Munger vide letter dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure-4) issued under the signature of the Civil Surgeon (respondent no.3). He further submits that the petitioner’s claim of family planning operation on different dates is absolutely false and incorrect rather it is stated that the family planning camp, Lohchi, Munger on 21.02.2009 was organized by the government doctors and staffs of Primary Health Societ Centre, Haveli Kharagpur, Munger in which 19 ladies were operated. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as the arguments raised on behalf of both the parties, it is quite apparent that during the course of inspection by the Quality Assurance Committee, no infrastructure and manpower were found and hence there was no occasion for the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner and in that circumstances, they were quite justified in returning the said Bank Guarantee to the petitioner by impugned order dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure-4). Furthermore, the period of Bank Guarantee had expired on 15.08.2009 whereas the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 08.07.2010 i.e. after - 4 - about a year of its expiry and hence there is no occasion for this court to interfere. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)