Case: UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOOLCHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST

2. The factual matrix reflects that the Government of India in the year 1949 took a decision to provide all possible help to the hospitals by allotting land to the hospitals and schools at highly concessional rates so as to involve them in achieving the larger social objective of providing health and education to the people. Pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting dated 10.6.1949 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary (Finance) it was decided that the land would be allotted to the hospitals and schools at the rate of Rs.2000/ to Rs.5000/ per acre. The hospitals and schools were treated as charitable institutions. While the first safeguard relating to institutions being secular and noncommunal in character, free help by allotment of land to schools and hospitals was unanimously accepted. It was also agreed that nonprofit making bodies be 4included under the term charitable institution with the aforesaid institutions. The test should be that the institute should be run for the good of the public without any profit motive. The relevant portion of policy decision dated 10.6.1949 is extractedIt should be clearly laid down that the land will be made available only for institutions of secular andcharacter, schools and hospitals should be freely helped by allotment of land but applications from other types of charitable institutions should be considered individually on merits. It would be risky to lay down a general rule as regards theRecognition by an appropriate authority to the Government should be a condition precedent the allotment of land to schools, hospitalsThe first safeguard was unanimously accepted. It was understood that an institution of secular andcharacter was one which did not discriminate against any class of people on any ground while making an admission. It was also agreed that institutions like Arts and Crafts Society and othernonprofit making bodiesshould be included under the term "Charitable Institution". The test should be that the institution should be run for the good of the public without any profit motive.It was also deliberated upon on 10.6.1949 that what should be premium and ground rent chargeable to a charitable institution. As per the policy laid down by the Government of India in the letter of 5the Department of Education, Land, dated 25.7.1943, the premium charged was too high, to be easily payable by any charitable institution much less by any displaced institution from Pakistan. According to that formula, any charitable institution will have to pay a premium at the rate of 25,000 to 35,000 per acre, plus ground rent @ 15% on the premium per annum, that would be obviously too high. Hence, it was agreed that the premium chargeable on land allocated to charitable institutions in Delhi should vary from Rs.2000/ to Rs.5000/ perrelating to Mool Chand KhairatiRam TrustIn the year 1927 one Lala Kharaiti Ram of Lahore made a Will with a codicil registered at Lahore by which Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust was constituted by Lala Kharaiti Ramwith the name of his father Shri Moolchand. The relevant clauses of the Will are extracted hereunderAfter meeting theallotments the following instructions shall be observed with regard to the property of every description that may remain after myAll the remaining property of every description shall constitute a Trustknown as Moolchand 6Kharaiti Ram Trust, Lahore, the objects of which shall be asImparting education in and preaching Sanskrit according to Sanatan Dharm Methods,Devising means for imparting education in and improving the Ayurvedic System of Medicine and preaching the same. In order to gain object No.2 it is not prohibited to take help from the English or Yunani or any other system of medicine and according to need one or more than one Ayurvedic Hospital may be opened.It was the case of the Trust that the author neither used the word charity nor charitable while creating the Trust in the Will. In law, it became a charitable trust on account of the provisons of section 2 of teh Charitable Endowments Act, 1890. Mool Chand hospital acquired the perception of being charitable not from the Will or the purpose set out for the Trust but from the very nature of the activity of providing medical relief, more so in view of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which defines charitable purpose.The Trust was running a hospital in Lahore in the name of Moolchand Kharaiti RamHospital. After partition, the trustees had to leave Pakistan and migrate to India as refugees in 1947. The Ministry of Rehabilitation allotted nine acres of land at Lajpat Nagar to the 7Trust on 17.4.1951 on which land at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi, the Trust built a hospital which has been running since then. At the time of allotment Lajpat Nagar was not a prime location of Delhi.It was further the case of the Trust that in the allotment letter there was no term or condition to provide free treatment to patients belonging to economically weaker sections of the society at the hospital. Subsequently, lease deed was formally executed between the President of India and Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust which was to be effective from 17.4.1951 for a period of 99 years. In this lease deed also, there was no such condition regarding free treatment to any patient. Thus, it was not open to the Government to impose the obligation of providing free medical treatment by an executive order. The policy of 1949 regarding institution should be run for the good of the public without any profit motive was applicable to other institutions like Arts & Crafts Society and not to hospitals. At the most, the only rider in the policy was that the institution would be run for the good of the public without any profit motive. This policy/test was to be applied at the time of allotment of land and only such institutions were to be allotted land which in the opinion of the 8Government fulfilled the said criteria. Since the policy has not been converted into law by enactment of an Act by the legislature, only insistence could be that the institution should be run without any profit motive and not that the institution be required to provide free treatment to any specified number of patients. The DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 are not applicable in the case of Trust. Clause 14 of the lease deed did not authorize the Government to impose such conditions. That the decision of Social Jurists case (supra) is not applicable as in that case there was either conditions of allotment, or the stipulations in the lease deed under which the hospitals were obliged to provide access to significant percentage of the IPD and OPD facilities. Right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is fundamental under Article 19(1)(g) as such, such restriction could have been imposed by enacting a law under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India by Parliament or the State legislature. Such condition could not have been imposed by executive feat in exercise of power under Article 162. In the decision in Social Jurists (supra) which has been affirmed by this Court, the Trust was not a party. The condition of lease could not have been altered unilaterally. This Court while dismissing the SLP on 1.9.2011 by a 9speaking order, did not intend such result. This Court never intended to pass adverse order against a person who had not been given notice or heard in the matter. A contempt petition was filed in the High Court for proceeding against the hospital run by the trust. The same was dismissed by the High Court as they were not parties to the case of Social Jurists (supra). Land was given by way of incentivizing the Trustto open a hospital in that locality because at that time not so many people were willing to open hospitals or schools. As these services were to be provided by the State, the land was not given at the concessional rate. It was the market rate that prevailed in the year 1951. Report of Justice Qureshi Committee was not relied upon by the High Court while deciding the case of Social Jurists (supra) and High Court had appointed a Committee namely Mr. N.N. Khanna Committee. At that time when Justice Qureshi Committees report was prepared, it was based upon the statement made by disgruntled workmen who were having dispute with the management of the hospital as such said report cannot be looked into. It was also submitted that there are specialist doctors in the Trust run since 1958 who devote one hour each day to OPD patients from the weaker sections of the society without charging them anything and they will continue to doregarding St. Stephen hospitalIn the case of St. Stephen hospital, it was averred by the hospital that it was established in the year 1885 by a group of missionary women in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. In 1908 it moved to its present location to Tees Hazari, Delhi. Land admeasuring 1.37 acres, 2331 sq.yds. and 1.29 acres was allotted to it by L&DO vide allotment letters dated 12.6.1970, 25.2.1972 and 19.1.1976 for its additional requirements. Subsequent to the agreement, the lease deeds were signed and perpetual lease deeds were executed. There was no such condition in the allotment letters/lease deeds for providing free care/treatment to the patients. The hospital having regard to its objective has always been providing substantial treatment to the needy. In the writ petition, the order passed by L&DO on 2.2.2012 was questioned regarding the condition of free care as part of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. Same has been allowed by the High Court. Though land had been obtained for purpose of the charitable institution it was not open to imposing such riders byexecutive order. There was no condition of free care in the 1949 policy. Unilateral amendment of the lease deed could not have been made. The decision of Social Jurists (supra) is not applicable as 20 hospitals were dealt with in the said decision. There was no stipulation regarding free care in the allotment letters/lease deeds. The order is without jurisdiction. Hence, the writ petition was filed in the Highregarding Sitaram Bhartiya Institute of Science &Sitaram Bhartiya Institute of Science & Research was a registered society. On 30.3.1984, it applied for allotment of land admeasuring 3 acres for establishing a multidisciplinary research complex in New Delhi. On 22.10.1984 the DDA allotted land admeasuring 1.52 acres @ Rs.6 lakhs per acre. Request was made by the said society to charge at the concessional rate that was declined on 20.11.1984. On 2.9.1985 lease deed was signed by which a consideration of Rs.8,76,000/ for 1.46 acres was transferred to the petitioner. The case of Social Jurists (supra) was filed in the High Court. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court. Pursuant to the decision in Social Jurists (supra), Circular was issued by the Government on 20.1.2012 to the hospitals/societies to whom land had been allotted at concessional rates to provide free treatment to the eligible patients or weaker sections category free of charge. The society took the stand that it was not allotted the land for the purpose of hospital at concessional rate. Hospital was asked by the department on 28.6.2012 to provide free treatment. On 28.6.2012 it directed that it was making arrangement to comply with the order. On 12.7.2012 the society informed the Director of Health Services about the stand taken by it to comply with the said directions. However, on 13.3.2012 contempt application filed against it for not complying with the directions, was disposed of by the High Court holding that no contempt was made out. On 18.4.2013 and 29.4.2013, Director of Health Services required the accounts of hospitals for the purpose of scrutiny for the last two years from the date on which the possession of land was given. Petitioner pointed out on 4.5.2013 that there was no condition to provide free treatment to economically weaker sections category as such the hospital was not similarly situated. Condition was not applicable. However, name of petitioner was not removed from the hospitals that failed to provide free treatment hence the writ petition was filed in the High Court. Moreover, similar are the facts of Foundation for Applied Research instand of theOn behalf of the State it was contended that thestand of theGovernment was that as per the policy decision taken in the year 1949, it was decided to allot the land at concessional rates i.e. @ Rs.2000/ to Rs.5000/ per acre to the institutions which was far lesser than the already prevailing concessional rate of Rs.25,000/ to Rs.30,000/ per acre fixed vide letter dated 25.7.1943.In the case of Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust vide allotment letter dated 17.4.1951 land was allotted at the rate of Rs.2000/ to Rs.5000/ per acre and ground rent @ 5% on the premium per annum. Thereafter, a lease deed was executed for 99 years on 24.4.1968 in favour of Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust.St. Stephens hospital was similarly allotted 1.37 acres of land vide allotment letter dated 12.6.1970 which was followed by lease deed dated 3.7.1970, whereafter, further land admeasuring 2331 sq. yds. was allotted vide allotment letter dated 25.2.1972 at the rate of Rs.5000/ per acre and ground rent at the rate of 5% per annum.Sitaram Bhartiya Institute of Science & Research was allotted 1.52 acres of land at the rate of Rs.6/ lakhs per acre on 22.10.1984 followed by lease deed dated 2.9.1985 in respect of another plot of 1.46 acres for a consideration of Rs.8,76,000/. The Government of Delhi with the approval of Lt. Governor of Delhi constituted a Committee headed by Mr. Justice A.S. Qureshi to review the existing free facility extended by the charitable hospitals and various other hospitals which had been allotted land at concessional terms/rates by the Government. Amongst other measures the Committee opined asMost of the representatives of the hospital submitted that 25% of beds earmarked for poor patients were excessive since the cost of medicines was too high. It was agreed that it should not be more than 15% in any case, but 10% would be ideal. Therefore, the Committee recommended 10% indoor beds free for poor patients for all purposes including medicines and consumables. The free treatment services should be available to 25% of total OPD patients. This condition should be made applicable to all hospitals that have been allotted land by the govt". (emphasisThe recommendations of the Qureshi Committee were accepted with some variation in the meeting of the GNCTD presided over by the Chief Secretary on 23.10.2002.Earlier, a writ petition was filed by Social Jurists underof the Constitution of India in the High Court of Delhi seeking that conditions of allotment of land to hospital particularly in regard to free treatment to poor people be complied with and action be taken in respect of recommendations of the Justice Qureshi Committee. The writ petition was decided on 22.3.2007. Various directions were issued, inter alia, asAll the 20 hospitals stated in this judgment and/or all other hospitals identically situated shall strictly comply with the term of free patient treatment to indigent/poor persons of Delhi as specified above i.e. 25 OPD and 10% IPD patients completely free of charges in all respects.The High Court of Delhi vide order dated 17.7.2007 directed all the hospitals which had been given land on concessional rates to abide by the order of free treatment. The special leave petitions were preferred by the hospitals which were dismissed by a speaking order by this Court. This Court observed that 25% OPD and 10% of IPD patients have to be given treatment free of cost. The said patients should not be charged with anything.Thereafter the GNCTD came out with a Circular on 20.1.2012 intimating hospitals to implement the directions of the High Court with regard to free treatment in terms of judgment dated 2.3.2007. Land & Development Officer passed an order in this regard to follow the policy. Similar letters were issued to Sitaram Bhartiya and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer.The Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer was allotted a plot admeasuring 0.9 acres @ Rs.28,50,000/ per acre provisionally with annual ground rent at 2.5% per annum, the premium was revised to Rs.39,00,000/ per acre on 22.10.1991. In August 1992, it represented to the Lt. Governor that as per notification dated 11.09.1991, the price of the land allotted to it was fixed at Rs.3,25,000/ and sought a refund, however, the request was declined.The High Court of Delhi had allowed the writ applications, hence, the appeals have been preferred. Social Jurists, a civil rights group has filed Civil Appeal Nos.31573158 of 2017 against the judgment and order passed in the case of Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trustand others. Other appeals have been filed by Union of India/NCT of Delhi.

Reasoning:
52. In the wake of globalisation, we are in a regime of Intellectual Property Rights. Even these rights have to give way to the human rights. It is an obligation of the Government to provide lifesaving drugs to havenots at affordable prices so as to save their lives, which is part ofArticle 21 of the Constitution of India.It is equally an obligation of the State to devise such measures that havenots are not deprived of the very treatment itself. Administering medicines is also a part of medical therapy. Thus, in our considered opinion members of the medical profession owe a constitutional duty to treat the have nots. They cannot refuse to treat a person who is in dire need of treatment by a particular medicine or by a particular expert merely on the ground that he is not in a position to afford the fee payable for such an opinion/treatment. The moment it is permitted, the medical profession would become purely a commercial activity, it is not supposed to be so due to its nobleness. Thus, in our opinion, when the Government land had been obtained for charitable purpose of running the hospital, the Government is within its right to impose such an obligation.In Parmanand Katara (supra) this Court has observed that every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statutes or otherwise, which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way, and there is an obligation upon the doctor to treat the injured victim on his appearance before him either by himself or being carried by others. It has also been observed by this Court that the effort to save the person should be the top priority not only of the medical professional but even of the Police or any other person who happens to be connected with the matter or who happens to notice such an incident or a situation. Apprehensions that the doctor will have to face police interrogation and stand as a witness in court and face all the harassments, should not prevent them from discharging their duty as medical professionals to save a human life and to do all that is necessary.In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (supra), this Court has observed that the Constitution envisages the establishment of a welfare State. In a welfare State, the primary duty of the Government is to secure the welfare of the people. Providing adequate medical facilities for the people is an essential part of the obligations undertaken by the Government in a welfare State. The Government discharges this obligation by running hospitals and health centers which provide medical care to the person seeking to avail of those facilities. Preservation of human life is thus of paramount importance. Government is dutybound to provide timely care to persons in serious conditions. Medical facilities cannot be denied by the Government on the ground of nonavailability of bed. Denial of medical assistance on unjust ground was held to be in violation of right to life under Article 21 and the State was directed to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000 to the petitioner and requisite directions were issued by this Court. The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation in that regard on account of financial constraints and was directed to allocate funds for providing adequate medical infrastructure.In our opinion, the State can also impose such obligation when the Government land is held by such hospitals and it is the constitutional obligation imposed upon such hospitals. Under Article 47, State has to make constant endeavor to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. It is also one of the fundamental duties enshrined in Article 51A(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. It would be inhuman to deny a person who is not having sufficient means or no means, the lifesaving treatment, simply on the ground that he is not having enough money. Due to financial reasons, if treatment is refused, it would be against the very basic tenets of the medical profession and the concept of charity in whatever form we envisage the same, besides being unconstitutional would be violative of basic human rights. In our opinion, when the State largesse is being enjoyed by these hospitals in the form of land beside it is their obligation by the very nature of the medical services to extend the reciprocal obligation to the public by providing free treatment as envisaged in the impugned order. In case they want to wriggle out of it and not to comply with it, they have to surrender the land and orge out the benefit which they have received by virtue of holding the Government land in an aforesaid manner.It is regrettable that the land had been obtained by Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trustwhich claims to be charitable and St. Stephens Hospital run by the Missionaries admittedly for charity, are questioning the very conditions for which they have come into being and it appears with the passage of time they have lost the very purpose of their establishment. In our opinion they should have welcomed the conditions imposed by the Government, considering their objectives and for the purpose, they have obtained the land. Two other hospitals, namely, Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer also cannot wriggle out of their such obligations.Even when the purpose of the charitable activity is not defined, it is open to the court to define it. The decision of the Government cannot be said to be foreign to the purpose for which land is held. Thus, the action of the State cannot be said to be unauthorized, illegal or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever and is in furtherance of the very objectives for which the medical profession exists. It is very unfortunate that by and large the hospitals have now become centers of commercial exploitation and instances have come to notice when a dead body is kept as security for clearance of bills of hospitals which is per se illegal and criminal act. In future, whenever such an act is reported to the police, it is supposed to register a case against management of Hospital and all concerned doctors involved in such inhumane act, which destroys the basic principles of human dignity and tantamount to a criminal breach of the trust reposed in the medical profession.It is unfortunate that most of the hospitals are being run on a commercial basis and various ills have sunk in the noble medical profession. Right from wrong reporting, uncalled for investigation inclusive of invasive one, even as to heart and other parts of the body, which are wholly unnecessary, are performed, it is time for soul searching for such big hospitals in and around Delhi, Gurgaon etc. and other places. They must ponder what they are doing. Is it not a criminal act? Simply by the fact that action is not taken does not absolve the responsibility. Time has come to fix accountability and to set right the evils which have rotten the system. The medical profession had never been intended to be an exploitative device to earn money at the cost of patients who require godly approach and helping hand of doctors. Every prescription starts from Rx, not from the amount of bill. Being big commercial international hospitals in and around Delhi, they are not above the ethical standards which they have to maintain at all costs even by extending financial help to the havenots.The poor cannot be deprived of the treatment by the best physician due to his economic disability in case he requires it. It is the obligation on the medical professionals, hospitals, the State and all concerned to ensure that such person is given treatment and not deprived of the same due to poverty. That is what is envisaged in the Constitution also. On the making of a doctor, the State spends and invests a huge amount of public money and it is the corresponding obligation to serve the needy and the treatment cannot be refused on the ground of financial inability of the patient to bear it. To such an extent, the right and moral obligation can be enforced and that precisely has been done by issuance of the impugned directions to provide free treatment in IPD and OPD to economically weaker sections of society. They have suffered so long and benefit has not percolated down to them of distributive justice and they are deprived of equal justice and proper treatment due to lack of financial means. It is apparent from the policy decision dated 10.6.1949 and also theprovisions contained in section 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890that running of hospitals is regarded as a charitable activity. The further rider in policy was that such institution claiming allotment should be secular and of noncommunal character.The Arts and Crafts Society and othernonprofit making bodieswere also included under the term charitable institution with the rider that the institution should be run for the good of the public without any profit motive. It was contended on behalf of the hospitals that the aforesaid condition is not applicable to hospitals and would apply to Arts and Crafts Association, and there was no specific stipulation with respect to providing free treatment in the letter of allotments and lease deed. In our opinion, the rider that the Arts and Crafts institution should be run for good of the public, without any profit motive is primarily applicable to the charitable institutions like hospitals etc. then it has been only specified as an obligation to Arts and Crafts institution etc. too. As such there would be an obligation upon hospitals being charitable by their very nature to provide free treatment to economically weaker sections of society. The expression no profit motive would also exclude the hospitals being run for commercial gains. That would be violative of the very foundational basis and fulcrum on which the allotment order had been issued and lease deeds have been executed. Once having claimed themselves to be charitable institutions, it does not lie in the armory of defense to raise such plea and having obtained the benefit of the public largesse. It is not open to raising the aforesaid challenge within the framework of legal parameters. As a matter of fact, as these hospitals are being run for commercial gains, it would be open to the lessor to terminate the lease. That can be done in case there is a refusal to comply with or violation in any manner of the obligation of providing free medical treatment to 10% IPD and 25% OPD patients belonging to economically weaker sections of the society. The imposition of the said condition is inherent in the policy and in the very grant on the basis of which the land is held and even otherwise in the case of two other institutes i.e. Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer, as they are holding the Government land for the hospital purpose and research functions in the hospital, the allotment was also made at a predetermined rate and not by way of auction and considering the specific stipulation in clause 7 of the lease deed and considering the aforesaid other aspects, and it being charitable activity, it was open to the Government to obligate them by providing free medical treatment.It is apparent that decision in Social Jurists (supra) has been rendered on the basis of the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letters as well as stipulations made in the lease deeds. Some representations were made relating to free treatment. The High Court, hence in Social Jurists (supra), opined that it was not necessary to incorporate each and every condition in the lease deed and other corresponding documents would also be seen and it was not only contractual but statutory, and public law obligation enjoined upon the hospitals to fulfil condition of free treatment. The order was affirmed by this Court by a reasoned order, hence it becomes binding as precedent.It is apparent that in the case of Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust and St. Stephens Hospital, the lands were allotted for charitable purposes under the Scheme of the year 1949, as further modified, thus, the policy under which they had obtained lease deed would also be a relevant document and of paramount importance for entitlement to hold the land for purpose as specified in the policy, as that is the basic document governing the rights of the parties, and the terms and conditions of lease deed, would be supplemental to the main objective of the policy. The lease deed can supplement not supplant the main policy or rules as the case may be under which the allotment has been obtained and lease deed has been executed.In our considered opinion, not only by the policy that prevailed in 1949, the land at concessional rates for charitable purposes, had been obtained and free treatment being as stipulated in the order dated 02.02.2012 issued by the Government of India, is within the realm of the policy under which allotment had been made at highly concessional rates in the heart of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority Rules framed in 1981. They cannot wriggle out of their obligation by contending that there was no such stipulation in the allotment letter or lease deed. Allotment letter and lease deed are subject to the riders in the main policy and rules under which grant has been made. It is the foundation of the allotment letter and the lease deed.In the case of Sitaram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer, the allotment had been made by the DDA when the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 were in vogue.It is apparent from Rule 5 that allotment of lands to the charitable institutions would be at predetermined rates and not on market rates. According to Rule 20 above, the allotment is subject to the further rider that public institution should subserve the interests of the population of the Union Territory of Delhi and such institutions should be of nonprofit motive character. There was a clear stipulation by way of the condition in clause 7 of the allotment letter to the effect that DDA reserves the right to alter any terms and conditions on its discretion. Thus, it appears that the land was obtained for research purposes. Later on, it was noticed that hospitals were set up and were running on commercial lines, which was objected to by the DDA as it was in clear violation of the terms and conditions. As the land was obtained at concessional rates, not on market rates, the hospitals were bound to serve the public good and the imposition of such condition in the lease deed could not be said to be impermissible, arbitrary or irrational. The allotments that were made in favour of Sitaram Bhartiya Institute and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer were at predetermined rates, which were lesser than the marketour view, it is wholly impermissible submission. The Trust cannot be permitted to wriggle out of its obligation unjustly and unfairly. Originally the Trust was set up for pure charity. In raising such unworthy and untenable submission, Trust has lost its main objective and assumeda commercial character and it is regrettable that it has to be reminded of its responsibility by the Court for the purpose for which it exists and having obtained the land on a particular basis, is observed only in breach thereof. The adverse remarks in the report of Justice Qureshi Committee with respect to the institution cannot be brushed aside on the sole ground that comments recorded in Justice Qureshis report were based on the statement made by disgruntled employees of the hospitals, who were in dispute with the management of thestatement in the factual matrix has no legs to stand and we are conscious that we are not trying to create any new obligation. It was a selfcreated obligation on missionaries to do charity for which they exist while obtaining the land and Court is duty bound to enforce it. By the stipulation in the question of free treatment, the policy rules of allotment have been given a shape that is enforceable and cannot be termed to be a new imposition not contemplatedis apparent that Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust was created by a Will executed by Lala Kharaiti Ram resident of Lahore in 1927. The Will was produced for perusal. The objects of the creation of Trust were imparting education in and preaching Sanskrit according to Sanatan Dharam methods; and, secondly, for devising means for imparting education in and improving the Ayurvedic system of medicine and preaching the same. In order to achieve the latter object, it was not prohibited to take help from the English or Yunani or any other system of medicine and according to need, one or more than one Ayurvedic Hospital may be opened. It was contended that it was not in the deed of the Trust to impart free medical aid. The ground raised and what is contained in the Will is against the very purpose for which the Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital is being run. When its object was of improving the Ayurvedic system of medicine only as is apparent from the material on record that at present the said activities had beenconfined to one room and the changed main activity is an Allopathic system of medicine which was not at all the intendment of the creator of the Trust. We leave the matter at that in these proceedings. However, having obtained the land for charitable purposes for the hospital, for no profit and for the public good, whatever system of medicine is being administered, it can be obligated with such charitable rider of free treatment as envisaged in the impugned order issued by the Government.Similarly, St. Stephens Hospital is Missionaries hospital and its very objective admittedly is to provide the charitable services free of charge but it has also become more or less a commercial venture as in the case of other hospitals inter alia involved in the instant matter, how such provision for charity is opposed is beyond comprehension, is it charity versus charity. They have to abide by the just and reasonable legal conditions for free treatment which are constitutionally envisagedthe Trustees are Indian citizens, they are exercising their fundamental right in running the hospitals. If any restriction was to be placed on their right to run the institution by providing the manner in which they must run their hospitals by providing free treatment to a particular percentage of patients, this could only be done by enacting a law under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.For deciding the aforesaid submission pivotal question arises whether imposition of condition tantamounts to a restriction imposed within the purview of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. In our considered opinion the High Court has erred in law in holding that such stipulation could have been imposed only by a statutory law. In our considered opinion, it is not a restriction on the right to carry on medical profession, the medical profession has obligated itself by such conditions by very nature of its professional activity and when the State land is being held which is for the public good with no profit motive, such land is held for the charitable purpose of public good. The charitable purpose would include, as already discussed, the aforesaid obligation of free treatment to the persons of economically weaker strata of the society. It is not a restriction but the very purpose of existence of medical profession and very purpose of policy/Rules to grant land to institutions without public actions that would have fetched market rate and does not amount to putting any fetter to practice the medical profession or to carry on occupation. On due consideration of the very object of the medical activity its professional and other obligations for the proper treatment of the persons of economically weaker sections of the society deprived of the fruits of development. The benefits of various welfare schemes hardly reach to them in spite of efforts made, economic disparity is writ large and persists. They cannot afford such treatment and thus in lieu of holding land of Government at concessional rate and enjoying huge occupancy benefits inter alia for aforesaid reasons, the hospitals can be asked to impart free treatment as envisaged in the Government order.The hospitals nowadays have fivestar facilities. The entire concept has been changed to make commercial gains. They are becoming unaffordable. The charges are phenomenally high, and at times unrealistic to the service provided. The dark side of such hospitals can be illuminated only by sharing obligation towards economically weaker sections of the society. It would be almost inhuman to deny proper treatment to the poor owing to economic condition and when hospitals claim that they are doing charity at their own level, we find impugned order dated 2.2.2012 is simply an expression to the aforesaid activity which has been given a channelized form.We are of the considered opinion that there was no necessity of enacting a law, as the policy/rules under which the land has been obtained, the hospitals were obligated to render free treatment as the land was allotted to them for earning no profit and held in trustfor public good. Similar is the provision in the rules of 1981 and apart from that the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India also enjoins upon the medical profession to extend such help and in view of the object of the hospitals, trust, and missionaries it is apparent that there was no necessity of any legislation and the Government was competent to enforce in the circumstances, the contractual and statutory liability and on common law basis.The right to carry on the medical profession has not been restricted, however, what was enjoined upon the respondent hospitals to perform otherwise had been given a concrete shape. Thus, it was permissible to issue circular in the exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution. It was urged on behalf of hospitals that they were doing a charitable work at their own, thus, it could not be said to be a restriction within the meaning contemplated under Article 19(6) for which a law was required. No new restriction has been imposed for the first time under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, as such in our opinion, there was no necessity for enacting a law, such guidelines could be issued under the executive powers.This Court has observed that above economic justice means abolition of such economic conditions which remove inequality between man and man. In our opinion, there has to be positive action for that equality.In our considered opinion such stipulation for free treatment does not amount to restriction under Article 19(6) on the right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) and even otherwise it was not necessary to enact a statutory provision by the Government in view of existing liability as per policy/rules/statutory provisions as to ethical standards and other statutory provisions in force.The High Court of Delhi also referred to Rules 5 and 21 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. Rule 5 deals with rules of premium for allotment of Nazul land to certain public institutions, whereas Rule 20 deals with allotment to certain public institutions. Rule 5 provides that the Authority may allot Nazul land to schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, other social charitable institutions, religious, political, semipolitical organizations and local bodies for remunerative, semi remunerative or unremunerative purposes at the premia and ground rent in force immediately before the coming into force of these rules, or at such rates as the Central Government may determine from time to time. Rule 20 (a) (i) provides that no allotment of Nazul land to public institution, referred to in Rule 5 shall be made unless, according to the aims and objects of public institution, it directly sub serves the interests of the population of the Union Territory of Delhi. Rule 20 (c) provides that public institution should be a nonprofit making character. There is no such stipulation running contrary to the aforesaid provisions.The High Court held that it was not open to hospitals to wriggle out of their contractual, statutory and public law obligation. There was no scope for reading and confining the rights and obligations of the parties in isolation.The Government of NCT of Delhi accepted the recommendation of the Justice Qureshi Committee as reasonable and took the decision that it should be enforced. However, Union of India stated that the matter was under its consideration and they had not taken a final view in the matter. At the relevant time, the similar view was expressed by Maninder Acharya Committee that the condition of free treatment of poor strata of society should be reasonable, but its implementation should be strictly enforced and in the event of default, strict action should be taken.The aforesaid decision in Social Jurists (supra) was questioned before this Court by way of several special leave petitions filed by Dharamshila Hospital & Research Centre etc. and Sundar Lal Jain Charitable Hospital also challenged the abovesaid decision by preferring SLP (C) No.5630 of 2008. The said special leave petitions were dismissed by reasoned order dated 01.09.2011.Thereafter, the Government of India on 2.2.2012, issued the impugned order with respect to the policy of free patient treatment to indigent/poor persons of Delhi to be followed by the private hospitals allotted land by Land & Development Office on concessionalIt was also submitted that decision in Social Jurists (supra) is not at all applicable to the Trust. We have examined the case thoroughly and we find that condition of free treatment had been the primary objective, which would be applicable to hospitals in question and to all other similarly situated hospitals, whether they were party to the aforesaid decision or not. The decision rendered in Social Jurists (supra) would be applicable to similarly situated institutions having been rendered in the public interest institution and affirmed by this Court by a reasoned order.It is not the case of unilateral imposition of the condition of free treatment on the hospitals. The inquiry was conducted, hospitals were heard and evidence was recorded by Justice Qureshi Committee and thereafter recommendation made in the report had been accepted. The hospitals were required to show cause. Pursuant thereto, the reply had been filed. Thus, the decision cannot be said to be unilateral.It is apparent that before imposing the conditions in lease deeds, a High Level 10Member Committee for hospitals in Delhi was constituted, headed by Mr. Justice A.S. Qureshi regarding the working of the hospitals and nursing homes in Delhi, to review the existing free treatment facilities extended by the charitable and other hospitals who had been allotted land on concessional terms/rates predetermined by the Government, and to suggest suitable policy guidelines for free treatment facilities for needy and deserving patients uniformly in the beneficiary institutions, in particular, to specify the diagnostic, treatment, lodging, surgery, medicines and other facilities that would be given free or partially free; to suggest a proper referral system for the optimum utilization of free treatment by deserving and needy patients; and to suggest a suitable enforcement and monitoring mechanism for the above, including a legal framework. The Committee held various meetings, conducted enquiries, various hospitals were heard including MoolchandKharaiti Ram Hospital. The Government observed that there were resistance and persistent refusal of the management of Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital to send a reply to the questionnaire and to submit the documents which they were required to submit at the end of the enquiry. The first visit made to Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital was on 16.1.2001 and the second on 21.3.2001. Various other hospitals were also visited. The Committee observed that there was no legal, social or moral justification for allowing such moneymaking commercial concerns. The land was allotted for a charitable purpose and to do charitable service which has now been totally replaced by exploitative commercial hospitals.With respect to Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital, Justice Qureshi Committee has discussed the matter in extensive details. It has been observed that initially the Trust was truly charitable. It was granted 9 acres of prime land situated on the Ring Road in Lajpat Nagar in South Delhi. Initially the hospital continued to serve as a free Ayurvedic hospital for patients in OPD and IPD sections. It also carried on the research for Ayurvedic medicines. Later on the trustees decided to introduce Allopathic treatment also. The Allopathic Section has been upgraded with airconditioned deluxe and superdeluxe rooms which are called Wards. Presently the Allopathic section covers about 90% of the hospital activities and the Ayurvedic section is reduced to about 10%. There is only nominal Ayurvedic treatment of patients in OPD and IPD, which had originally 4 wards. Now it is reduced to only one ward in which there are very few patients. There were only 4 or 5 Ayurvedic patients in the ward on 21.3.2001. The manufacturing of Ayurvedic medicines is also considerably reduced. After noting in detail the statements of various witnesses working in the hospital, and after analysing them, the Committee has found that the Moolchand Kharaiti RamHospital has acted not only contrary to the wishes of its founder but also violated the terms and conditions regarding free treatment to the poor, openly both in letter and spirit. The management of hospital does not consider it to be a charitable hospital at all. The land would not have been allotted to Trust if it was not charitable. Be that as it may, nonetheless the land has been allotted for charitable purpose to the hospital. Their stand was that the word poor was not defined in the lease deed or anywhere else, was adversely commented upon. Some adverse comments were also made with respect to the interpolation in the Will. We are not considering the aforesaid question of interpolation in the instant matter as nothing turns on it. The Committee observed that if the hospital was not saved immediately it may be too late because it appears to be in the process of being sold out. The facts are writ large along with the statements of witnesses recorded in the course of the inquiry. In addition, the High Court of Delhi during the course of hearing of Social Jurists (supra) has also constituted a Committee headed by Shri N.N. Khanna and also considered the same and thereafter the decision had been rendered in Social Jurists case (supra).Reliance has been placed on behalf of Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust to the decision rendered in Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 703 , wherein it was observed that no adverse orders to be passed against a party without hearing him. On this account, it was contended that the Court could not have passed the adverse order against the hospitals, who were not heard in the matter of Social Jurists (supra). It was also contended that a contempt petition was filed by Union of India, which was dismissedon the ground that the hospitals in question were not impleaded as a party to the writ petition, that does not help the hospitals in question. We have examined the matter on merits in the present case afresh unfettered by previous decision and have found Governments order dated 2.2.2012, to be absolutely proper.Reliance has also been placed onDelhi Development Authority & Anr. v. Joint Action Committee Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 672 , wherein it was held that novation of contract cannot be done unilaterally, and the new terms must be brought to the knowledge of the offeree and his acceptance thereto must be obtained. It was further observed that when a contract has been worked out, a fresh liability cannot be thrust upon a contracting party and it was beyond the scope of the original terms contained in the offer letter and the allotment letter, in which the imposition of extra charges was not contemplated. In factual matrix being different decision has no application to the instant case as it was stipulated right from the beginning in the policy/rules that land to such institution has been given for charitable purposes of hospitality, research etc. at concessional rates and/or with nonprofit motive. It is not the case of new obligation being fastened at the time of renewal of the contract.