2018 INSC 0573
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8590­8591 OF 2018
(arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 14871­14872 of 2015)
BHARMAL MEDICAL STORE 
CIVIL HOSPITAL BADNAGAR ETC. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
AND OTHERS      ….RESPONDENT(S)
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).8592 OF 2018
(arising out of SLP(C) No.21414 of 2015
APNA MEDICAZE ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
AND OTHERS       ….RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The questions involved in these appeals being common,
there being  a minor  variation  in  facts, they  have been heard
1

together and are being disposed by a common order.   Suffice
to   observe,   that   in   the   limited   nature   of   the   controversy,   we
propose   to   take   notice   of   the   facts   only   to   the   extent
necessary for purposes of the present order.
3. Both the appellants are lessees of the State Government
for   the   shop   premises   situated   within   the   compound   of   the
District   Hospital,   Ujjain,   Civil   Hospital,   Nagda,   Khachrod,
Mahidpur,   Badnagar   etc.     They   have   been   asked   in   2013   to
vacate   the   shop   premises   and   shift   from   the   Civil   Hospital
compound.     The   justification   is   the   formulation   of   a
Government   Scheme   i.e.   Sardar   Vallabh   Bhai   Patel   Nishulka
Aushadhi   Vitaran   Yojna   for   supply   of   free   essential   drugs   to
all classes of patients by the Government.  It is not in dispute
that   the   shop   premises   was   constructed   by   the   authorities
and   does   not   fall   in   the   category   of   an   unauthorized
construction.   It was settled with the appellants by open bid
in   2000/2001.     The   lease   period   has   long  since   expired  and
the lease has not been renewed.
2

4. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   submits   that   the
notice   to   vacate   the   shops   in   the   hospital   premises   is
arbitrary.     No   show   cause   notice   with   an   opportunity   to
convince   the   authorities   not   to   order   removal   was   provided.
Closure of the shop will infringe the fundamental rights of the
appellants   under   Article   19(1)(g)   of   the   Constitution.     The
supply of generic medicines by the State Government will not
be   disturbed   by   the   medicine   shops   being   operated   by   the
appellants.   The   presence   of   the   shops   would   only   aid
availability of medicines to the patients. 
5. Learned   counsel   for   the   State   submitted   that   the
medicine   shops   were  permitted   at   a   time   when   patients   had
to   procure   medicines   on   their   own.     With   the   advent   of   the
new   scheme   for   supplies   of   medicines   by   the   Government,
there   exists   no   need   for   medicine   shops   within   the   hospital
premises.  In fact, the shop premises can be better utilized to
facilitate supply of free medicines by the Government itself to
the   patients.     The   lease   has   long   expired   and   no   steps   have
been taken for renewal by the appellants.
3

6. We   have   considered   the   submissions.     The   laudable
objective   of   the   Government   to   ensure   availability   of   free
medicines   to   the   patients   in   the   civil   hospital   premises   will
have   to   be   balanced   with   the   competing   interests   of   the
appellants to earn their livelihood.   If peaceful coexistence is
possible, there is no reason why the shop premises should be
shut   down   and   the   appellants   be   asked   to   vacate.   The
respondents in their counter affidavit have acknowledged the
existence   of   a   large   number   of   medicine   shops   immediately
outside   the   premises   of  the   government   hospital,   to   contend
that it was sufficient to take care of the needs of patients.   It
is   but   a   tacit   admission   by   the   respondents,   for   the   need   to
have private medical shops in the vicinity for the convenience
of   the   patients.       Without   further   speculation,   it   would
naturally   be   so   for   myriad   reasons   such   as   availability   of
timely   supplies,   logistics,   nature   of   medicines   required,   etc.
There   can   also   be   times   when   availability   of   a   particular
brand   medicine   may   be   a   compelling   necessity   without
awaiting   government   supply   to   be   replenished.     If   for   such
eventualities   a   private   medical   shop   is   countenanced   by   the
respondents   at   the   gate   of   the   hospital   it   is   difficult   to
4

appreciate their insistence for removal of the appellants.   We
are,   therefore,   unable   to   sustain   the   notice   directing   the
appellants   to   vacate,   and   which   in   any   event,   has   been
ordered   without   an   opportunity   to   the   appellants   for
presenting   their   case   and   convincing   the   authorities   not   to
remove them.
7. The   shop   premises,   as   observed   above,   are   not
unauthorized structures, but leases have long expired and no
steps  have been taken  by  the  appellants for  renewal  of their
leases.     The   rent   was   Rs.300­400/­.     At   the   time   of   initial
settlement also, it was done with the appellants on the basis
of  open  bid.   Considering   the  long  passage  of  time  since  the
lease   has   expired,   and   the   appellants   cannot   claim   an
indefeasible   right   to   continue   irrespective   of   such
considerations, we deem  it proper  to observe that it shall be
open for the respondents to hold an open bid for the shops in
question   inside   the   hospital   premises.     The   appellants   can
also   participate   in   the   same.     Needless   to   say   that   the
settlement will have to be made with the highest bidder.  The
present order cannot be construed as a complete embargo on
5

the   respondents   with   regard   to   the   shop   premises   for   all
times to come.  Any future eventuality, for justifiable reasons,
will always leave the authority a discretion for closure of the
shops for valid and germane reasons.  
8. Till such fresh bids are held, the appellants shall not be
disturbed but shall continue to pay the enhanced rate of rent
in the manner provided for in the agreement with effect from
the date of the present order.  If there are any arrears of rent,
it shall also be deposited at the agreed rate within a period of
four   weeks.    The  impugned  orders  of  the  High   Court  are  set
aside.  The appeals are allowed.
…………...................J.
[RANJAN GOGOI]
…………...................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
…………...................J.
[K.M. JOSEPH]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 27, 2018
6