“Flagrant Violation of Natural Justice”: MP High Court Quashes Sealing and Deregistration of Fertility Clinic, Slams Officials for ‘Haphazard’ Action Without Legal Backing
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, Single Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar quashed the sealing and cancellation of registration of a private fertility clinic. The Court found that the action taken by the authorities lacked adherence to the mandatory statutory requirements under the M.P. Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchaar Sambandhi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan), Adhiniyam, 1973, and was undertaken in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court issued directions for immediate unsealing of the clinic and quashing of the cancellation order.
The Court recorded: "The respondents have not complied with any of the conditions as prescribed under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973... the notice has not been given of one calendar month, and secondly, its intention to pass an order of cancellation of registration of the private clinic."
The writ petition was filed by Sarvottam Suyash Clinic and Fertility Centre through its proprietor, Dr. Smita Surendran, who is a qualified medical practitioner holding M.B.B.S. and D.G.O. degrees, and is also serving as a Post Graduate Medical Officer at District Hospital, Shajapur since 2010. The petitioner challenged the action of sealing the clinic and the cancellation of its registration by the State authorities.
According to the petition, the clinic is duly registered under Section 4(3) of the Adhiniyam, 1973, and holds a valid registration and license until March 31, 2027. The petitioner submitted that an application for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) registration was filed on January 24, 2023, followed by a second application on June 4, 2024. However, these applications were neither processed nor responded to by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Shajapur.
In parallel, the Municipal Corporation, Shajapur, issued a notice on May 29, 2024, directing the petitioner to conduct a fire and life safety audit. The audit was carried out and submitted in compliance with the legal requirements.
Dr. Smita Surendran sought leave for the period of August 6 to August 7, 2024, which was duly sanctioned. During her absence, on August 7, 2024, officials of the respondent authorities visited the clinic premises following certain complaints. An inspection was carried out, and the premises were sealed on August 14, 2024, without prior notice, and without providing a copy of the panchnama or any show cause notice.
The petition challenging the sealing was filed on August 12, 2024. During the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated September 12, 2024 (erroneously referred as September 12, 2023, in the documents), was passed, cancelling the registration of the clinic. This cancellation was purportedly based on two notices dated August 9, 2024, and August 14, 2024.
The petitioner submitted that neither of these notices provided a one-month notice as required under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam, nor did they mention any intention to cancel the registration. The notice dated August 9, 2024, referred to various deficiencies and gave three days for a reply. The subsequent notice dated August 14, 2024, called for appearance and reply on the same day at 6:00 p.m.
Senior Advocate Shri Aditya Sanghi, appearing for the petitioner along with Advocate Shri Kamal Tiwari, submitted that the cancellation was carried out in a summary manner and without statutory compliance. He argued that the entire action suffered from procedural impropriety and non-compliance with the statutory mandate under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The provision requires the supervising authority to issue a notice of at least one calendar month stating the grounds for cancellation and offering an opportunity for hearing before any adverse order.
Counsel for the State, Shri Kushagra Jain, submitted that the petitioner was performing MTP procedures without proper registration, which warranted both the sealing of the premises and cancellation of the registration. The respondent relied on the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Madhukar Dwivedi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2017 SCC Online Chh 1561, in support of its actions.
The Court examined the order of cancellation dated September 12, 2024, and held that it purportedly relied on Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. The Court quoted the provision as follows:
“Before making an order refusing an application for registration and license in respect of a nursing home or a clinical establishment or an order canceling any registration and license in respect thereof, the supervising authority shall give to the applicant or to the person registered and licensed not less than one calendar months’ notice of its intention to make such an order and every such notice shall state the grounds on which the supervising authority intends to make the order and shall contain intimation to the effect that if within a calendar month of the receipt of the notice the applicant or the person registered informs the authority in writing that he desires so to do, the supervising authority shall, before making the order, give him an opportunity of showing cause (in person or by representative) which the order should not be made.”
The Court observed that the language of Section 6(1), though not happily worded, is clear in requiring a one-month notice and stating grounds of proposed cancellation. It was recorded: "Apparently in both the notices, the respondents did not inform the petitioner that they intend to cancel its registration."
The Court examined the notice dated August 9, 2024, and noted that it only mentioned certain deficiencies and informed that the premises would be sealed in the larger public interest, providing three days to respond. The second notice dated August 14, 2024, referred to the earlier one and directed appearance on the same day. Neither notice stated an intention to cancel the registration.
Regarding the sealing of the premises, the Court recorded that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner and no legal provision under which the sealing was carried out was mentioned in the respondents' reply. The sealing of the clinic, thus, also suffered from the same infirmity of procedural violation.
In reference to the availability of an alternative remedy, the Court stated:
“The respondent has passed the order in a haphazard manner without properly complying with the mandatory provisions of Adhiniyam, 1973, which is apparent on the face of record, and the principles of natural justice have also been clearly and flagrantly violated.”
It was further noted that relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy would not be efficacious under the given circumstances.
The Court concluded that the cancellation order dated September 12, 2024, was passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Accordingly, the following directions were issued:
"The impugned order dated 12/9/2023 (12/9/2024) of cancellation of registration of the petitioner’s clinic is hereby quashed, and the respondents are also directed to unseal the petitioner's premises immediately. However, with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and after serving a proper notice and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Shri Aditya Sanghi, assisted by Shri Kamal Tiwari
For the Respondents: Shri Kushagra Jain, Government Advocate
Case Title: Sarvottam Suyash Clinic and Fertility Centre Through Its Proprietor Dr. Smita Surendran vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 23764 of 2024
Bench: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
[Read/Download order]
