Allowed

Mohd.Sohail Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021WRIC/6210/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order cancelling the registration of the petitioner's Nursing Home. The cancellation was set aside because it was passed without issuing a notice or providing an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 32 of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 30.12.2020 quashed; respondents at liberty to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing.

Mohd.Sohail Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6210 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd.Sohail Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai,Shahnawaz Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rahul Sahai for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and have perused the record.

¶6

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 30th December, 2020 passed by Additional Chief Medical Officer, Budaun whereby the online registration of petitioner's Nursing Home No. CMEE2007493 has been cancelled.

¶7

The petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 regulates registration of clinical establishments and provides a procedure in respect of cancellation of registration granted under the Act. It has been submitted that under Section 32 of the Act, 2010 before cancellation of registration a reasonable opportunity of hearing is to be accorded to the clinical establishment. It has also been submitted that cancellation of registration can take place if the conditions of the registration are not complied with or the person entrusted with the management of the clinical establishment has been convicted of an offence punishable under this Act.

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has neither been convicted nor any of the conditions of registration are shown to have been violated and therefore the impugned order dated 30.12.2020 is liable to be set aside.

¶9

On 24.06.2021, the Court required the learned Standing Counsel to file a short counter-affidavit disclosing whether procedure provided under Section 32 of the Act, 2010 was followed or not.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel, despite opportunity, could not obtain instructions. He, however, prays for further time to file counteraffidavit.

¶11

Considering that in the order impugned dated 30.12.2020, there is no statement in respect of issuance of notice to the clinical establishment for inviting an explanation, as is required by section 32 of the Act, 2010, keeping in mind the averment made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition that no prior notice/intimation was served upon the petitioner before the impugned order was passed against it, we do not deem it necessary to keep the matter pending, particularly, when a fresh order can be passed after giving opportunity of hearing.In view whereof, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition and quash the order dated 30.12.2020 on the ground that it was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to

¶12

the petitioner.

¶13

The petition is accordingly allowed . The order dated 30.12.2020 is quashed. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Mohd.Sohail Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Sohail Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Kumar Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Bank Ltd. and 3 Others

Ravindra Jain Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajdeep Singh Grovar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Durvasa Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alkama Bano Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabhawati Pandey Vs State of U P and 6 Others