Union of India vs Moolchand Khairati Ram Trust

Direction to Private Charitable Hospitals to follow the policy of providing free treatment to persons belonging to economically weaker sections – Validity of – Government of NCT of Delhi by its circular dated 2.2.2012 intimated respondent-hospitals to implement judgment of Delhi High Court with regard to free treatment to weaker sections of society, passed in Social Jurists case – Order of Land & Development Officer (L&DO) asking the hospitals who had been allotted land by L&DO to strictly follow policy of providing free treatment to economically weaker sections – Respondent-hospitals, since were not party in the Social Jurists case, challenged the conditions imposed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and L&DO – High Court quashed the orders passed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi and L&DO – On appeal, held: Land was obtained by the respondenthospitals for charitable purpose at concessional rates – When the Government land is allotted, the hospitals owe a duty to act in public interest – It is obligation of State as a welfare state to ensure basic necessities food, nutrition, medical assistance etc. – Right to life u/Art. 21 includes right to health and thus also includes right of patients to be treated with dignity – u/Art. 47 State has to make constant endeavour to improve public health – It is also one of the fundamental duties enshrined u/Art. 51A(h) to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform – The State also has to constantly make an endeavour for realization of human rights agenda – Right to health is provided in Art. 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10.12.1948 – Policy decision dated 10.6.1949 as well as s. 2 of Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 makes it clear that running of hospitals is regarded as charitable activity – When the Government Land is obtained for charitable purpose, the Government is within its power to impose obligation of free treatment to economically weaker sections – On refusal to comply or on violation of the obligation, it is open to the lessor to terminate the lease – Imposition of condition of free treatment to economically weaker section does not tantamount to a restriction imposed within purview of Art. 19(6) on the right enshrined u/Art. 19(1)(g) – Judgment in social jurists case is a binding precedent – The hospitals in question and other similarly situated hospitals are directed to scrupulously observe the conditions framed in order dated 2.2.2012 and in case of violation, the lease shall be cancelled – Constitution of India – Arts 19(1)(g), 19(6), 47 and 51A(h) – Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 – s.2 – Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Art. 25 – Hospitals.

Hospitals:

Conduct of hospitals – Indulging in inhumane act for the sake of commercial exploitation such as keeping the dead body as security for clearance of bills – Held: Such conduct of the hospitals is per se illegal and criminal and tantamount to Criminal breach of trust reposed in the medical profession – In future whenever such act is reported to police, it is supposed to register a case against management of the hospital and the doctors involved in such act. Constitution of India:

Art. 162 – Executive orders – In absence of legislation – Validity of – Held: There can be executive orders in absence of legislation in the field – It is open to the State to issue executive orders even if there is no legislation in support thereof, provided the State could legislate on the subject in respect of which action is taken.

Doctrines/Principles:

Cy-pres doctrine – Applicability of.

Words and Phrases:

‘Charitable’, ‘Charitable purpose’, ‘Charitable Corporation’ and ‘Charitable trust’ – Meaning of.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Charitable is the public purpose for the benefit of the needy people, who cannot pay for benefits received. The Internal Revenue Code may define it separately for its purposes what is charitable so as to claim the benefit under the Act. The charitable trust is a trust which is for the benefit of general public. Charitable is a kind and generous in giving money or other help to those in need. If there is no statutory definition of charitable purposes, to be a charitable purpose, it must satisfy certain tests. It must be for the public benefit and available to a sufficient section of the community. The reference to charity should be construed in their technical legal sense. For income tax purpose, the charity may be defined in the Act and in that light, the interpretation of the Act has to be made. Public benefit is an essential ingredient of charitable activities. There are two distinct requirements, the purpose itself must be beneficial and not harmful to the public. It is difficult to believe that a trust would be held charitable if the poor are excluded from its benefits.[Para 43][975-F-H; 976-A-B]

1.2 The cy-pres doctrine can be clearly pressed into service in the instant matter when the Government land has been allotted to the hospitals even if the mode of giving charity was not specified. It can be specified later on and the Court is not powerless to enforce that purpose of the charitable trust, of which the particular mode of the application had not been defined by the donor or otherwise. Where a testator intends to benefit several charitable objects, one of which fails, the fund must not be distributed among other objects if the one that fails bears no resemblance to the other. When trusts have been altered by a scheme, and the trusts of the scheme become impossible so that a new cy-pres scheme is required, the trusts of the new scheme must be as close as possible to the original trusts of the gift. [Para 44][976-C-E]

1.3 The relief of the poor is one of the essential requirements of the charity. All hospitals are not charitable institutions as there may be hospitals which run commercially. The hospitals, which are operating under the guise of charity, are in fact being run on a commercial basis and it has become impossible for the poor to afford the life-saving drugs at an affordable price. Their right to life is in jeopardy. Merely by the expression hospital, it could not be successfully claimed by the respondent-hospitals that they are charitable. They can be directed to fulfill their obligation and fulfill the purpose by undertaking charitable activities and give it the real meaning by giving free services as envisaged in the policy. The claim of the hospitals that they are undertaking charity at their own level cannot be used as a shield to the performance of charity in an organized way. The very spirit of the argument that as they do charity, it cannot be fastened upon them, is self-destructive and tends by its tenor to negate unjust obstruction created in the path of real charity. [Para 46][976-F-H; 977-A]

1.4 Charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education and medical needs. As per the provisions of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, relief of the poor and medical relief is included as such conditions which had been imposed are clearly within the parameters of aforesaid definition. [Para 46][977-B-C]

1.5 The charity in the broadest sense includes whatever proceeds from a sense of moral duty or from humane feelings towards others uninfluenced by one’s own advantage or pleasure. In its widest sense, denotes all the good affections men ought to bear towards each other; in its most restricted and common sense, relief of the poor. In the Mahommedan Law, the charity has a more general import than under the English Law. A wakf of property by a Mahommedan to defray the expenses of the poor, the fakirs, the orphans, the needy and the indigent and to defray the expenses of good deeds, creates a trust for public purposes of a charitable nature. In common parlance, the word charity means giving to someone in any necessitous circumstances and in law, it means a giving for public good. Thus, the charitable object would be served if it is not to earn a profit. [Paras 47, 49][977-D-F; 979-D]

1.6 Medical profession deals with the life of human beings. There has to be a balancing of human rights with the commercial gains. In the wake of globalisation, it is 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 life-saving drugs to have-nots at affordable prices so as to save their lives, which is part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is equally an obligation of the State to devise such measures that have-nots are not deprived of the very treatment itself. Administering medicines is also a part of medical therapy. Thus, members of the medical profession owe a constitutional duty to treat the havenots. 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. Thus, 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. [Paras 51, 52][980-H; 981-A-D]

1.7 When the Government land has been allotted to the hospitals, they would not be doing free service but being a recipient of Government largesse at concessional rates and continue to enjoy it, they owe a duty to act in public interest. Not only have obtained the land at a concessional rate, the other two hospitals, namely, Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer have also obtained land at a lower pre-determined rate, not at market rate. It was not by way of a public auction that they have received the land. Besides, in their cases clause 7 was inserted in the allotment letters to the effect that “The DDA reserves its right to alter any terms and conditions on its discretion.” As hospitals are enjoying Government land it is open to the Government to impose such riders and stipulations for free treatment to be given to economically weaker sections. [Paras 57, 58][983-C-E, H]

1.8 The realization of human rights vests responsibilities upon the State. The State has to constantly make an endeavor for realization of human rights agenda, particularly in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. Right to health is provided in Article 25 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10.12.1948. [Para 59][984-A-B]

1.9 The State has to ensure the basic necessities like food, nutrition, medical assistance, hygiene etc. and contribute to the improvement of health. Right to life includes right to health. Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution also includes right of patients to be treated with dignity. Right to health i.e., right to live in a clean, hygienic and safe environment is a right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. 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 duty-bound to provide timely care to persons in serious conditions. Medical facilities cannot be denied by the Government on the ground of non-availability of bed. [Paras 60, 61 and 62][984-C-G; 985-B-D]

1.10 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. [Para 63][985-E-F]

1.11 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. [Para 65][986-D-E]

1.12 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. [Para 65][986-E-F]

1.13 It is the obligation on the medical professionals, hospitals, the State and all concerned to ensure that poor 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. [Para 67][987-B-D]

1.14 It is apparent from the policy decision dated 10.6.1949 and also the provisions contained in section 2 of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 that 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. [Para 67][987-E]

1.15 It cannot be said that the 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. 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. [Para 68][987-F-H; 988-A-B]

1.16 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 pre-determined 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. [Para 68][988-B-E]

1.17 The decision in *Social Jurists case 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 case 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. [Para 69][988-E-G]

1.18 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. [Para 70][988-G-H; 989-A-B]

1.19 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. [Para 71][989-B-D]

1.20 It is not correct to say that this Court cannot proceed to make an order on account of sympathy in contravention of settled law and it will seriously damage the credibility of this institution. The Trust cannot be permitted to wriggle out of its obligation unjustly and unfairly. Originally the Trust was set up for pure charity. Trust has lost its main objective and assumed a 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 Qureshi’s report were based on the statement made by disgruntled employees of the hospitals, who were in dispute with the management of the hospital. [Para 75][991-D-G]

1.21 On behalf of Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust, Will has been relied upon to indicate the purpose of creation of Trust. The objects of the creation of Trust was inter-alia 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. 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 been confined 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. 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. [Para 77][992-B-F]

1.22 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 envisaged also. [Para 78][992-G-H]

State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Chawla & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 83 : [1996]10 Suppl. SCR 279; Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC

384 : [2013] 12 SCR 30; Occupational Health and Safety Association v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 1469 : [2014] 4 SCR 10; Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 286 : [1989] 3 SCR 997; Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (1996) 4 SCC 37 : [1996]

2 Suppl. SCR 331 – relied on.

P.C. Raja Ratnam Institution v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 1990 (Supp) SCC 97 : [1989] Suppl. SCR 66; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Children Book Trust (1992) 3 SCC 390 : [1992] 2 SCR 535; Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club & anr. v. Chander Hass & Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 683 : [2007] 12 SCR 1084 – referred to.

Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales v. A-G (1971) 3 All ER I029 CA;

Ironmongers’ Co. vs. A-G (1844) 10 CI & Fin 908 at

027 HL; Lambeth Charities (1853) 22 LJ Ch 959 – referred to.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition; Webster’s New World Dictionary; Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol.5, Fourth Edition; Law Lexicon, the Encyclopedic Law Dictionary by P. Ramanatha Aiyer – referred to.

2.1 It is not correct that imposition of condition tantamounts to a restriction imposed within the purview of Article 19(6) of the Constitution. High Court has erred in law in holding that such stipulation could have been imposed only by a statutory law. 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, 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. 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. [Para 83][998-B-F]

2.2 The right to carry on the medical profession has not been restricted, however, what was enjoined upon the respondenthospitals 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 on 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 there was no necessity for enacting a law, such guidelines could be issued under the executive powers. [Para 86][999-C-E]

2.3 It is open to the State to issue executive orders even if there is no legislation in support thereof provided the State could legislate on the subject in respect of which action is taken. There can be executive orders in the absence of legislation in the field. [Para 87][999-F]

2.4 Therefore, 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. [Para 95][1013-B-C]

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur & Ors. v. The State of Punjab [1955] 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549; U.

Unichoyi & Ors. v. State of Kerala AIR 1962 SC 12 : [1962] SCR 946; Minerva Talkies, Bangalore & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (1988) Suppl. SCC 176 : [1988] SCR 511; T.V. Balakrishnan v. State of T.N. & Ors. 1995 Suppl. 4 SCC 236; State of Orrisa and Anr vs. Radheyshyam Meher & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 855 : (1995) 1 SCC 652 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 591; Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India (1996) 10 SCC

104 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 825; Indian Drugs &

Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. v. Punjab Drugs

Manufacturers Association & Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 247 – relied on.

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. [1964] 1 SCR 322; Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 615 : [1986] 3 SCR 518; State of M.P. & Anr. v. Thakur Bharat Singh AIR 1967 SC 1170 : [1967] SCR 454; Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer AIR 1955 SC 33 : [1955] SCR 752 – referred to.

3.1 It cannot be said that decision in Social Jurists case is not applicable to the Trust. 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 case would be applicable to similarly situated institutions having been rendered in the public interest institution and affirmed by this Court by a reasoned order. [Para 103][1023A-C]

3.2 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. [Para 104][1023-C-D]

3.3 Before imposing the conditions in lease deeds, a High Level 10-Member 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 pre-determined 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 Moolchand Kharaiti 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 money-making 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. [Para 105][1023D-H; 1024-A-B]

3.4 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 and 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 air-conditioned deluxe and super-deluxe 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. 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 Ram Hospital 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. Nonetheless the land has been allotted for charitable purpose to the hospital. In addition, the High Court of Delhi during the course of hearing of Social Jurists case 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. [Para 106][1024-A-H; 1025-A] Delhi Development Authority & Anr. v. Joint Action Committee Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC

672 : [2007] 13 SCR 811 – distinguished

Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2009)

2 SCC 703 : [2009] 1 SCR 469 – referred to

4. The hospitals in question and other similarly situated hospitals, shall scrupulously observe the conditions framed in the order dated 2.2.2012 and in case any violation is reported, the same shall be viewed sternly and the lease shall be cancelled. The Government of NCT of Delhi is directed to file a periodical report to this Court within a period of one year from the date of the present judgment with respect to compliance of conditions by the respondents-hospitals and other similar hospitals in Delhi, not only governed by the decision of Social Jurists case but also governed by the present judgment. [Para 109][1025-G-H; 1026A-B]