Allahabad High Court

: Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav, Deepak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Srivastava Court No. - 35 HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, by which the hospital of the petitioner has been sealed by respondent no.2.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Doctor and also founder of Globe Hospital (under construction) at Sonauli, District Maharaganj and that the clinical establishment started in the month of June 2024 and was in the final stage of completion after which it would have to be registered. There was a complaint which was preferred by one Atit Gaur, who is stated to be an employee at the hospital itself by which, he has levelled certain allegations ranging from the presence of medicines which belonged to the government and expired lab kits. On the basis of the said complaint dated 3.7.2025 addressed to the S.H.O. of Police Station Sonauli, a G.D. entry was made dated 3.7.2025 at 16.48 hrs, where the police has recorded that there existed a serious situation as the hospital is working on the basis of fabricated documents, without valid registration certificate and that pursuant to treatment being given at the hospital, some patients or the other would create nuisance there on a daily basis. It further records that the police sought the registration certificate from the petitioner, which the petitioner did not give and, thereafter upon a report from the police station to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, a copy of which was marked to the Chief Medical Officer, which document is dated 4.7.2025. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 constituted a team which 2 WRIC No. 41290 of 2025 inspected the hospital and after inspection prepared report dated 6.7.2025, in which they have stated that they have gone to the establishment of the petitioner on 5.7.2025 at 7.15 in the evening and carried out the inspection. In the inspection team was one Dr. Amit Kumar Gautam, Superintendent of Community Health Centre, Nautanwa, District Maharajganj and some police personnel from the Police Station Sonauli. They inspected the operation theater and the OPD ward and did not get any document pertaining to the registration of the hospital and neither was the same provided by the petitioner. After the inspection, the hospital premises was sealed on the basis of the report of the police dated

4.7.2025.

3. This Court has asked the State to specifically inform whether there were any reasons besides that shown in the inspection report, which led to the sealing of the petitioner's hospital.

4. Learned Standing Counsel today has placed before us short instructions received by him, there is no other reason for sealing the premises of the petitioner, but for the allegations levelled against him by the police that the hospital was operating without any registration certificate. He has further submitted that during the course of the inspection, no patients were found and neither the hospital was found functional. To a specific question posed by this Court whether any prescription copy or any sale of medicines from the establishment has been detected by the inspection team, the answer is in negative.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the hospital is approaching completion and upon completion they would apply for registration. They have also stated that they had applied for registration earlier on

06.07.2025 and the same was rejected on 16.07.2025, with remarks pertaining to non availability of Pollution Control System, disposal of biomedical waste and Fire Control System.

6. For the reasons already mentioned hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before applying for registration, they would rectify the defects pointed out by the respondent no.2 and thereafter, invite them for fresh inspection and upon being satisfied, the State may issue license 3 WRIC No. 41290 of 2025 for them to commence operations.

7. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent no.2 has acted in haste without even taking any piece of evidence or material into account that could make him arrive at the subject satisfaction that the hospital was operating without registration, and its operation is hazardous to the health of the people in the vicinity. Therefore, the hospital has been sealed by the respondent no.2 without taking into account that the petitioner's livelihood would depend on the hospital besides providing public service by way of health care to the people in the vicinity in a remote area.

8. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The hospital of the petitioner shall stand de-sealed forthwith. The petitioner shall not operate the hospital till such time till he applies for the registration and the registration is allowed by the State. If an application for registration is being made by the petitioner-hospital, the respondent no.2 shall strictly follow the procedure mentioned in Chapter 4 of the of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 with specific reference to Section 15 of the Act. In the event, the application is rejected, then due cause shall be shown to the petitioner with regard to the shortcomings found in inspection and further time be given to the petitioner to rectify the same.

9. However, this Court feels that cost must be imposed on the State for the manner in which it is acted. The officers of the State are presumed to well aware of the provisions of the law and their powers under the aforementioned Act. On an unverified complaint levelling allegations made by one person, on the basis of which a General Diary entry by the police, the respondent no.2 sealed the hospital of the petitioner after inspection and whereas the inspection report do not reflect that there were any patients in the hospital or actually the hospital was functional on the date on which the inspection was made, thus they have acted grossly in excess of their powers by sealing the hospital. Therefore, a cost of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed upon the State, out of which Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner and a cost of Rs. 10,000/- into the account of High Court Legal Services Committee at Allahabad. The State is given the liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officers, whosoever 4 WRIC No. 41290 of 2025 he may be, after due inquiry by the District Magistrate. December 10, 2025 Noman (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

: Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav, Deepak Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Srivastava Court No. - 35 HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the action of the respondents, by which the hospital of the petitioner has been sealed by respondent no.2.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Doctor and also founder of Globe Hospital (under construction) at Sonauli, District Maharaganj and that the clinical establishment started in the month of June 2024 and was in the final stage of completion after which it would have to be registered. There was a complaint which was preferred by one Atit Gaur, who is stated to be an employee at the hospital itself by which, he has levelled certain allegations ranging from the presence of medicines which belonged to the government and expired lab kits. On the basis of the said complaint dated 3.7.2025 addressed to the S.H.O. of Police Station Sonauli, a G.D. entry was made dated 3.7.2025 at 16.48 hrs, where the police has recorded that there existed a serious situation as the hospital is working on the basis of fabricated documents, without valid registration certificate and that pursuant to treatment being given at the hospital, some patients or the other would create nuisance there on a daily basis. It further records that the police sought the registration certificate from the petitioner, which the petitioner did not give and, thereafter upon a report from the police station to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, a copy of which was marked to the Chief Medical Officer, which document is dated 4.7.2025. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 constituted a team which 2 WRIC No. 41290 of 2025 inspected the hospital and after inspection prepared report dated 6.7.2025, in which they have stated that they have gone to the establishment of the petitioner on 5.7.2025 at 7.15 in the evening and carried out the inspection. In the inspection team was one Dr. Amit Kumar Gautam, Superintendent of Community Health Centre, Nautanwa, District Maharajganj and some police personnel from the Police Station Sonauli. They inspected the operation theater and the OPD ward and did not get any document pertaining to the registration of the hospital and neither was the same provided by the petitioner. After the inspection, the hospital premises was sealed on the basis of the report of the police dated

4.7.2025.

3. This Court has asked the State to specifically inform whether there were any reasons besides that shown in the inspection report, which led to the sealing of the petitioner's hospital.

4. Learned Standing Counsel today has placed before us short instructions received by him, there is no other reason for sealing the premises of the petitioner, but for the allegations levelled against him by the police that the hospital was operating without any registration certificate. He has further submitted that during the course of the inspection, no patients were found and neither the hospital was found functional. To a specific question posed by this Court whether any prescription copy or any sale of medicines from the establishment has been detected by the inspection team, the answer is in negative.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the hospital is approaching completion and upon completion they would apply for registration. They have also stated that they had applied for registration earlier on

06.07.2025 and the same was rejected on 16.07.2025, with remarks pertaining to non availability of Pollution Control System, disposal of biomedical waste and Fire Control System.

6. For the reasons already mentioned hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before applying for registration, they would rectify the defects pointed out by the respondent no.2 and thereafter, invite them for fresh inspection and upon being satisfied, the State may issue license 3 WRIC No. 41290 of 2025 for them to commence operations.

7. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent no.2 has acted in haste without even taking any piece of evidence or material into account that could make him arrive at the subject satisfaction that the hospital was operating without registration, and its operation is hazardous to the health of the people in the vicinity. Therefore, the hospital has been sealed by the respondent no.2 without taking into account that the petitioner's livelihood would depend on the hospital besides providing public service by way of health care to the people in the vicinity in a remote area.

8. Therefore, this petition is allowed. The hospital of the petitioner shall stand de-sealed forthwith. The petitioner shall not operate the hospital till such time till he applies for the registration and the registration is allowed by the State. If an application for registration is being made by the petitioner-hospital, the respondent no.2 shall strictly follow the procedure mentioned in Chapter 4 of the of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 with specific reference to Section 15 of the Act. In the event, the application is rejected, then due cause shall be shown to the petitioner with regard to the shortcomings found in inspection and further time be given to the petitioner to rectify the same.

9. However, this Court feels that cost must be imposed on the State for the manner in which it is acted. The officers of the State are presumed to well aware of the provisions of the law and their powers under the aforementioned Act. On an unverified complaint levelling allegations made by one person, on the basis of which a General Diary entry by the police, the respondent no.2 sealed the hospital of the petitioner after inspection and whereas the inspection report do not reflect that there were any patients in the hospital or actually the hospital was functional on the date on which the inspection was made, thus they have acted grossly in excess of their powers by sealing the hospital. Therefore, a cost of Rs. 20,000/- is imposed upon the State, out of which Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner and a cost of Rs. 10,000/- into the account of High Court Legal Services Committee at Allahabad. The State is given the liberty to recover the said amount from the erring officers, whosoever 4 WRIC No. 41290 of 2025 he may be, after due inquiry by the District Magistrate. December 10, 2025 Noman (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)