1 2025:CGHC:52869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3316 of 2025 1. Sparsh Multispecialty Hospital Through Director Dr. Deepak Kumar Verma S/o Shiv Kumar Verma R/o Surya Kiran Shikshak Nagar Kohka, District Durg, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) 2. Director cum CEO State Nodal Agency Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj V Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1.Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the instant case. 10.2.The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/7) and allow the petitioner to work under the ayushman Bharat Scheme, in the interest of justice. 10.3. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided to the petitioner.” 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a hospital running since last about 11 years. Petitioner hospital is also empaneled as one of the hospitals under a medical scheme known as “Ayushman Bharat Pradhanmantri Jan Arogya Yojana’ (for short ‘the scheme’) and provided treatment to patients eligible under the scheme. Petitioner hospital has been empanelled as per Guidelines on Hospital Empanelment and De-empanelment (Version 3.0). A show-cause notice dated 31.1.2025 (Annexure P-1) was issued to petitioner hospital pointing as many as 11 irregularities committed by petitioner while providing medical facilities to the patient under the scheme. Petitioner submitted reply to show-cause notice vide Annexure P-2. However, without considering reply to show cause notice submitted by petitioner in appropriate manner, respondent No.2 vide order dated 7.2.2025, Annexure P-3, ordered for de-empanelment of petitioner hospital for a period of one year. Detailed reply submitted by petitioner to the irregularities pointed out in 3 show-cause notice was not discussed in order Annexure P-3 and no reason has been assigned to record dissatisfaction on the reply submitted by petitioner but only in one line it is mentioned that reply submitted by petitioner is not satisfactory and not acceptable. The order, Annexure P-3, by which the petitioner hospital has been de-empaneled is a non-speaking order. Aggrieved with order of Annexure P-3, petitioner preferred an appeal as provided under the Guidelines (Annexure P-9) before the Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Raipur on the grounds as mentioned therein. Appeal was decided vide order dated 27.5.2025 (Annexure P-7). Appellate Authority while deciding appeal submitted by petitioner instead of passing order on merits of the grounds as pleaded in appeal, disposed of the appeal by reducing the period of de-empanelment to 06 months subject to condition of deposit of penalty of Rs.22.447/- Lakhs , which was imposed upon petitioner vide order dated 18.7.2024 (in other proceedings). He contended that challenge to the order of imposition of penalty was not subject matter of appeal and therefore, appellate authority could not have imposed such a condition but only could have decided the appeal taking note of the entire proceeding initiated against petitioner, reply Annexure P-2 and the order 4 Annexure P-3, which is missing. Appellate Authority has also not taken into consideration as to whether the order of de- empanelment of petitioner hospital is just, proper and in accordance with guidelines. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State opposes submissions of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and submits that the Nodal Agency after considering the reply submitted by petitioner to show-cause notice, has passed the order dated 7.2.2025 (Annexure P-3) de-empaneling the petitioner hospital for a period of one year. In show-cause notice as many as 11 irregularities have been specifically mentioned including bribe offered to members of State Level Inspecting Team. He contended that from the order dated 27.5.2025 (Annexure P-7) it is appearing that earlier for some other irregularities found by the authority in the hospital of petitioner, penalty of Rs.22.447/- Lakhs was imposed vide order dated 18.7.2024, which was never put to challenge by petitioner. Appellate Authority has reduced the period of de- empanelment from 01 year to 06 months. Document, Annexure P-5, which is stated to be an appeal preferred by petitioner against the order dated 7.2.2025 (Annexure P-3) is not an appeal but it is a representation for review of the order of suspension passed against petitioner. Order dated 7.2.2025 is passed in accordance with Guidelines (Annexure 5 P-9) applicable to the facts of present case. He next contended that order dated 27.5.2025 (Annexure P-7) wherein period of de-empanelment is reduced to 06 months. Suspension order is dated 7.2.2025. Hence, period of six months has already expired and as such, this writ petition is rendered infructuous. 4. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would submit that reduction of period of de-empanelment is subject to deposit of fine amount imposed vide order dated 18.7.2024. As per his information, petitioner has not deposited fine amount till date and has challenged the order imposing penalty by way of filing review application, which is still pending consideration. He submits that as per language used in the order dated 27.5.2025, de-empanelment is still continuing and it will continue for a period of one year if fine is not deposited. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents available in writ petition. 6. Annexure P-1 is show-cause notice issued to petitioner on 31.1.2025, pointing 11 irregularities noticed by inspecting team and seeking reply from petitioner by 4.2.2025. Petitioner submitted reply dated 3.2.2025 received on 5.2.2025 on all 11 irregularities pointed out in show-cause notice. Nodal Agency passed the order dated 7.2.2025, Annexure P-3, taking into 6 consideration the contents of notice and reply submitted by petitioner. However, in the order, in one line, it is mentioned that reply to show cause notice submitted by petitioner is not found satisfactory and it is not acceptable. No reason has been assigned for arriving at such a conclusion that reply submitted by petitioner is not satisfactory or not acceptable. The Director, Health Service, Govt. of CG, Raipur is appointed as CEO of the State Nodal Agency. Ayushman Bharat Pradhanmantri Jan Arogya Yojana is floated by the Central Government and as such, the authority who passes the order of de-empanelment for 01 year upon petitioner hospital is a public authority and therefore, it is expected from such an authority to pass an order assigning reasons for not finding reply of petitioner to be satisfactory and not acceptable. In absence of any specific reason to record that reply submitted by petitioner is dissatisfactory, it could be said that the order is passed without proper application of mind. Respondent No.1, who decided appeal against the order of de-empanelment, has not in specific terms considered irregularities as mentioned in notice and reply submitted by petitioner. 7. Perusal of Annexure P-7, which is the order passed by the appellate authority, would show that the appellate authority has considered the penalty, which is imposed upon petitioner 7 by another order dated 18.7.2024, which was not subject matter of consideration in appeal, and therefore, the order of Annexure P-7 passed by appellate authority is also bad in law. The Appellate Authority also has not discussed specifically reason to sustain the order of Nodal Agency of de-empanelment. 8. For the foregoing discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed. Order dated 7.2.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 27.5.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1 are set aside. However, the respondent No.2 will be at liberty to pass fresh speaking order considering show-cause notice dated 31.1.2025 (Annexure P-1) as also reply submitted by petitioner to it, in accordance with law, keeping in mind that petitioner has already suffered de-empanelment for a period of about 08 months. 9. Certified copy as per rule. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-