The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure prescribed in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to safeguard the interests of Mental Health Establishments must be mandatorily followed before passing any penal order.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal filed under Sections 69 and 83 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, the appellant herein has assailed Annexure A-11, i.e., office order dated 07.10.2021, passed by the Senior Medical Superintendent HHMH & Rehab-cum-CEO, H.P. State Mental Health Authority, Shimla-5, which reads as under:-

“OFFICE ORDER

Whereas Freedom Home Welfare Society was provisionally registered at Sr. No. 063 dated 28.12.2019 with HP SMHA and subsequently renewed on dated 28.12.2019 at Sr. No. 063 to run SUD treatment and rehabilitation centre at VPO Kinnu, Tehsil Bharwain, District Una (H.P.)-177109.

And whereas Chief Medical Officer, Una, vide letter No. HFW-UNA-(NMHP-MHEC)-2020/14875 dated 5.10.2021 has recommended closure on the basis of inspection carried out on 20.09.2021.

You are therefore directed to close down your operations within 7 days and shift the patients to their families. And De-addiction and rehabilitation services carried out in said SUDs treatment and rehabilitation centre shall be considered as unlawful and shall be accordingly dealt under MHCA-2017.

Sr. Medical Supdt.HHMH & Rehab-cum-CEO H.P. State Mental Health Authority, Shimla-5”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

Petitioner-Society was registered provisionally under the provisions of The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (hereafter referred to as ‘the 2017 Act’) as a Mental Health Establishment in terms of the provisions of Sections 65 and 66 thereof w.e.f. 28.12.2019 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the said provisional registration was renewed for a period of twelve months vide order dated 28.12.2020 (Annexure A-3). In other words, the petitioner-Society was permitted to operate as a Mental Health Establishment up to 27th December, 2021. In the interregnum, on the basis of a general complaint received against the functioning of such like Institutions, the petitioner-Institute was inspected by the Chief Medical Officer, Una alongwith his Team Members on 20th September, 2021 and based upon said visit, he submitted his report dated 5th October, 2021, which has led to the issuance of impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the same has been issued without following the procedure, which is laid down under the 2017 Act for cancellation of registration. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and has submitted that the statutory provisions contained therein, which are mandatory in nature and which have to be followed before cancellation of the registration, have not been followed and result thereof is that the impugned office order is rendered void abinitio. Accordingly, a prayer has been made that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside

4. Defending the order, learned Advocate General has argued that as the mandate of the Act was not being followed by the Institutions, including the petitioner-Institution, accordingly, they were inspected by the Chief Medical Officer and based upon the report of the said officer, appropriate office order was passed by the authority envisaged under the Act, as the same was in the larger interest of the patients, who were undergoing treatment in such like Institutions. He further submitted that the act was undertaken by the authority concerned without any discrimination, as the same parameters were applied for all the Institutions and wherever the infirmities were found, appropriate action was taken. On these basis, he has stated that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal being without merit, be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents on record.

6. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has been brought into force in place of The Mental Health Act, 1987 with the aim to provide for mental healthcare and services for