The main legal point established is that the cancellation of registration and permanent sealing of a hospital must adhere to the prescribed procedure under the Act 1949, including providing a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Additionally, the action must have the authority of law and cannot be arbitrary or illegal.

JUDGMENT :

SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner’s hospital and its permanent sealing made as per order dated 02.07.2021.

3. The petitioner is a sole proprietor of Shivam Hospital, which has been granted certificate of registration under Section 5 of the Bombay Nursing Home Registration Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1949) which expires on 31.03.2022. Even before expiry of the certificate of registration, owing to some criminal cases registered against the petitioner, a drastic decision was taken by the respondent Corporation in permanently sealing the hospital of petitioner and cancelling its registration granted under Section 5 of the Act, 1949.

4. Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the action of sealing and cancellation of registration of the petitioner’s hospital is arbitrary and illegal as no show-cause notice, which is required to be given in terms of Section 8(1) of the Act, 1949 and no opportunity of hearing as required under the law, was issued and given to the petitioner and straightaway the impugned action was taken against the petitioner. He relies upon the provisions made in Section 8(1) of the Act, 1949.

5. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that even otherwise there is no prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the offences registered against him and this can be seen from the observations made by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the order dated 05.04.2023 granting conditional bail to the petitioner in all the eight criminal cases. He invites our attention to the observations made in Paragraphs 7, 10, 11 & 13 in support of his submissions. Thus, he submits that even on this ground, there was no material available on record, which would have justified the sealing of the hospital and cancellation of registration of the hospital. He also submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited through its Directors vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2019) 20 SCC 119 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.

6. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that since several criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature, it was thought by the Corporation that larger public interest would stand served if the hospital was permanently sealed and its registration was cancelled. He submits that the action taken by the Corporation against the hospital was on the basis of the information received by the concerned police, which required taking of serious cognizance of the matter and immediate action against the hospital run by the petitioner. He also submits that in these circumstances giving of show-cause notice was not considered by the Corporation to be necessary.

7. It is not in dispute that the hospital run by the petitioner has been registered under Section 5 of the Act, 1949 and the certificate of registration was valid upon 31.03.2022. It is also not in dispute that before expiry of registration of the hospital of the petitioner, its registration came to be cancelled and not only that the hospital was also permanently sealed. The question would then arise as to whether the Corporation could have taken such an action against the hospital run by the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act 1949 and the answer has to be given emphatically in the negative.

8. The reason for negative answer that we have given here could be seen in the provisions made in sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Act 1949. For the sake of convenience, it is rep