Read Time: 07 minutes
The husband-wife duo who operated the hospital were allegedly booked for administering fake vaccines in July 2021. The high court recorded that a one-month notice is mandated before cancelling the hospital's license.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Rajesh Patil, has recently quashed the BMC's order to shut down Shivam Hospital in Charkop, Kandivali. The hospital's proprietors were booked under the fake vaccine case.
The husband-wife duo who operated the hospital were allegedly booked for administering fake vaccines in July 2021. Subsequently, the hospital was sealed following their arrest. In April 2023, a single-judge bench of the high court granted bail to the couple.
In its order, the division bench noted that while the allegations against the couple were serious but the high court did not find any prima facie substance to support them.
"We, therefore, find that the impugned action taken against the hospital run by the petitioner is in breach of the authority of law, is illegal and arbitrary, to say the least. No doubt, in all the criminal cases registered against the petitioner, there are serious allegations made; but it appears that those allegations insofar as the involvement of the petitioner is concerned, have been found by the learned Single Judge of this Court as not having any prima facie substance in them," the bench recorded.
Senior Advocate Abad Ponda, representing the couple, argued that the act of sealing and cancelling the hospital's registration was arbitrary and unlawful. He pointed out that the authorities did not provide any show-cause notice, as mandated under Section 8(1) of the Act, 1949 of Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949, nor did they offer an opportunity for a fair hearing before taking the impugned action against his clients.
He also contended that sealing of the hospital, which is an immovable property, is not permissible at the hands of the police exercising its power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or anybody else.
Advocate Anoop Patil, representing BMC, argued that due to the petitioner's involvement in several criminal cases and the serious nature of the allegations against them, the corporation believed that the larger public interest would be served by permanently sealing the hospital and cancelling its registration.
He further explained that the corporation's action was based on information received from the concerned police, which warranted prompt and serious attention, leading to immediate action against the hospital operated by the petitioner. Advocate Patil contended that, given these circumstances, issuing a show-cause notice was not deemed necessary.
The court, however, concurred with the contentions presented by Advocate Ponda and also observed that, in accordance with the act, a one-month notice is mandated before cancelling the hospital's license.
"It would be clear from the above referred provisions of law that before any order refusing registration of the hospital or cancelling registration of the hospital is passed, a show-cause notice giving time of not less than one calendar month is required to be given to the owner or the proprietor of the hospital or the applicant and such show-cause notice must make clear the intention of the supervisory authority to either refuse the registration or cancel the registration by giving the grounds on which the authority intends to make such an order" the bench observed.
Case title: Dr Shivam Chhotulal Pataria vs BMC
Please Login or Register
