Anjuman Hospital vs. State Of Rajasthan

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following remedies:- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and issue following writ, order or direction;

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Hospital having 95 beds, serving the patients of local area and was authorized under 'Mukhyamantri Chiranjeevi Swasthya Bima Yojana'. Learned counsel further submits that vide order dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure-2) a recovery of Rs.14,99,942/- was ascertained against the hospital along with penalty of Rs.74,99,710/- along with 18% GST i.e. Rs.13,49,948/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by way of first appeal, the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 was challenged by the petitioner and vide order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure-3), the first appeal was decided by the respondent No.4-Chief Executive Officer and Chairman SGRC, RSHAA (hereinafter referred to as learned 'First Appellate Court'). Vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned First Appellate Court, the amount of recovery i.e. Rs.14,99,942/- along with amount of penalty i.e. Rs.74,99,710/- was upheld, however, 18% GST i.e. Rs.13,49,948/- was waived of and the petitioner was directed to deposit the same within a period of 30 days of passing of the said order. Learned counsel further contends that aggrieved of the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by learned First Appellate Court, second appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner and vide order dated 07.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.3-Chairman (Appellate Tribunal, RSHAA) and Chief Secretary (Medical Health

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that ID of the petitioner has been suspended by the respondents and is ordered to be opened, only after depositing the penalty along with the recovery amount. Learned counsel also argues that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the penalty and the recovery amount at the earliest, however, it may be ordered to be deposited in some instalments and the respondents may be directed to open the ID of the petitioner.

Mr. Archit Bohra, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Counsel prays that there is no policy of receiving the penalty amount in instalments, therefore, the petitioner may be ordered to deposit the penalty and the recovery amount as a whole at once, only then ID of the petitioner shall be opened in favour of the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the present petition with the direction to the petitioner to deposit the recovery amount i.e. Rs.14,99,942/-, in the form of Demand Draft in favour of 'The New India Assurance Company Ltd.' payable at Jaipur within three days of passing of this order and amount of penalty i.e. Rs.74,99,710/-, in five instalments and each instalment being Rs.14,99,942/-, to be deposited with the respondent No.4-Chief

It is made clear that if the petitioner deposits the recovery amount i.e. Rs.14,99,942/-, in the form of Demand Draft in favour of 'The New India Assurance Company Ltd.' payable at Jaipur within three days of passing of this order and first instalment of penalty amount i.e. Rs.14,99,942/- on 15.11.2025, with the respondent No.4-Chief Executive Officer and Chairman SGRC, RSHAA, the respondents are directed to open the ID of the petitioner. It is also made clear that if the petitioner makes any default in payments of any of the instalments due, the respondents shall be at liberty to suspend the ID of the petitioner and to take any other action against the petitioner in accordance with law. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /164-S.