Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144333-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27285 of 2025 Petitioner :- Highfields Speciality Hospital Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Kaushik,Utkarsh Birla Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Kumar Singh,A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2. Sri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is present for respondent no. 3. 2. The petitioner is a medical establishment. It had entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 13.11.2023 with respondent no. 2 i.e. Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme, Health and Family Welfare, Meerut, entitling the petitioner to render medical services for two years to Central Government Employees/ Pensioners, who are covered under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). According to the petitioner, National Accreditation Board vide communication dated 1.7.2025 addressed to respondent no. 2 recommended for renewal of the empanelment of the petitioner hospital. It is alleged that on account of renovation work, the services remained hampered and the said fact was intimated by the Chief Administrator of the hospital vide letter dated 4.7.2025 to Chief Medical Officer, Meerut. On 8.7.2025, an inspection was made by Committee of CGHS, Meerut. The specific case of the petitioner is that the report of the said surprise inspection dated 8.7.2025 was not made available to the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice for de-empanelment under CGS vide email dated 22.7.2025. The petitioner submitted its reply through email on 27.7.2025, therein, the petitioner made request for being supplied with copy of the inspection report to enable the petitioner to give an effective reply to the show cause notice. The specific case of the petitioner is that without the inspection report being supplied to the petitioner and also without properly considering its reply, the impugned order dated 31.7.2025 has been passed by the respondent no. 2 recommending for following actions being taken against the petitioner:- "a) Immediate de-empanelment from CGHS, Meerut, b) Forfeiture of Performance Bank Guarantee submitted by your hospital, c) Blacklisting of your hospital for future empanelment under CGHS, d) Initiation of criminal and civil proceedings for submission of suspected fraudulent claims and breach of contractual obligations. e) Recovery of amount paid by CGHS on submission of fraudulent claims on NHA portal." 3. One of the arguments inter-alia is that since copy of the inspection report dated 8.7.2025 has not been made available to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner remained in dark in relation to the shortcomings, resulting in a serious handicap in responding to the show cause notice. It is submitted that adverse material on which the respondents were seeking to rely upon should have been supplied to the petitioner. 4. Having regard to the said contention, by order dated 13.8.2025, we granted time to learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 to obtain instructions. 5. On 18.8.2025 next date fixed in the case, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 stated that a new officer has taken over the charge as Additional Director, CGHS and therefore, sought more time to obtain instructions. Today on matter being taken up, he states that the Additional Director, CGHS, who passed the impugned order, was arrested on basis of complaint filed of the petitioner regarding demand of illegal gratification and the matter is under investigation by CBI. He states that from the record available in the office, there is no indication that copy of the inspection report was provided to the petitioner. 6. As the entire action, impugned herein, is on basis of the inspection conducted on 8.7.2025, therefore, in our considered opinion, the inspection report should have been provided to the petitioner before any action is taken on the basis thereof. 7. As the impugned order / recommendation dated 31.7.2025 does not give any such indication nor in the instructions supplied by the respondent- department, there is any material to indicate that the said report was provided to the petitioner, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there has been infraction of principles of natural justice. Undoubtedly, the impugned order has visited the petitioner with serious consequences and loss of reputation. 8. Consequently, the impugned recommendations as contained in the order of respondent no. 2 cannot be sustained. The order is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to provide a copy of the inspection dated WRIC No. 27285 of 2025 2 8.7.2025 to the petitioner, including any other material on which they seek to rely upon to enable the petitioner to give effective reply to the same. 9. It is further provided that as soon as the aforesaid material is provided to the petitioner, the petitioner will respond to the same positively within two weeks so that it shall be open to respondents to pass afresh order strictly in accordance with law. Legal consequences resulting from setting aside of the impugned order shall follow. However, it is clarified that the instant order would not have the effect of extension of the period of registration under CGHS and the said aspect is left open for being decided independently, in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Dhirendra/ WRIC No. 27285 of 2025 3 Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad