Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24114 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shivay Hospital And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.
By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 26.10.2020 by which the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut has suspended the registration of the Clinical Establishment of the petitioners on registration of a criminal case under Section 304A I.P.C.
The case of the petitioners is that the registration has been accorded under the provisions of Cinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (for short Act, 2010) wherein there is no provision for suspension of registration though, under Section 32 of the Act, 2010, the registration can be cancelled on specified grounds.
On 7.12.2020, the Court had required the Standing Counsel to obtain the instructions in the matter.
Pursuant to the order dated 7.12.2020, the learned Standing Counsel has obtained written instructions from the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut.
The learned Standing Counsel on instructions fairly stated that upto now there is no order of conviction of petitioner for offence punishable under section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code and that the order impugned has been passed in exercise of power vested in the Chief Medical Officer under Section 10 (2) of the Act, 2010.
The learned Standing Counsel, however, could not show any provision in the Act, 2010 whereunder the registration of a clinical establishment could be suspended though, he submitted, an inquiry committee was set up which, upon enquiry, found the clinical establishment negligent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 32 of the Act, 2010, the registration can only be cancelled upon finding, after opportunity of hearing, that the clinical establishment has been convicted or has violated the condition of registration. It has been submitted that there is no provision for suspension of registration and, otherwise also, there is no order of conviction. Further, no specific finding has been recorded with regard to violation of any condition of the registration.
Be that as it may, as it is not in dispute that there is no provision of suspension of the registration and the Act, 2010 admits of cancellation of registration on certain grounds, the appropriate course for the respondent was to draw proceeding for cancellation of registration, if necessary and permissible in law, therefore, the order of suspension of registration is not legally sustainable.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.10.2020 suspending the registration of the clinical establishment of the petitioners is quashed without prejudice to the power of the respondents to initiate and conclude proceedings for cancellation of registration in accordance with law.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the registration is liable to be cancelled.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Manish Tripathi