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.

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