The court held that cancellation of registration without adhering to mandated procedural safeguards violates legal principles, rendering the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

1. The Himachal Pradesh Mental Health Authority, Shimla has cancelled the registration of appellant’s mental health establishment. Feeling aggrieved, appellant seeks quashing of the cancellation order.

2. The sequence of events leading to cancellation of appellant’s registration:-

2(i) Appellant was running an all-women drug de-addiction &rehabilitation centre in the respondent/State. On 20.02.2023 it applied for registration under The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (in short “the Act”). The respondent–Chief Executive Officer, H.P. State Mental Health Authority-cum-Senior Medical Superintendent, granted certificate of provisional registration to the appellant- establishment on 07.03.2023. The provisional registration was subject to the conditions laid down in the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, Rules & Regulations made thereunder and valid for a period of twelve months. The provisional registration was renewable.

2(ii) According to the respondent, all de-addiction and rehabilitation centres registered with H.P. State Mental Health Authority (in short “HPSMHA”) are inspected by the District Inspection Team (in short “DIT”) notified by the State on 27.10.2021. According to this notification, the DIT consists of Chief Medical Officer as Chairman and Sub Divisional Magistrate & Deputy Superintendent of Police of the concerned area and Psychiatrist as Members of the DIT. The object behind constitution of the DIT is to ensure proper functioning of the centres, checking of inmates, their safety, to ensure congenial atmosphere for the inmates and to safeguard their rights during delivery of mental health care etc.

2(iii) The DIT Solan carried out inspection of the rehabilitation centres under its administrative control including the appellant’s centre on 26.09.2023. Several deficiencies and shortcomings were observed during inspection of these centres. The generalized deficiencies, as observed to be invariably f there in all the centres, were forwarded in form of a report by the DIT to respondent No. 1 on 30.09.2023. During inspection exclusive observations recorded concerning appellant’s centre were as under:-

“1 Patient are admitted and discharged without the recommendation of Doctor.

2. Staff appointed is not with proper records.

3. Visits by psychiatrist is infrequent.

4. MBBS doctor has stopped coming after only 2023.

5. Patient monitoring is poor.

6. Vitals not properly monitored.

7. Patient with psychiatric symptoms also admitted.”

2(iv) Respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the appellant on 4.11.2023. The notice stated that during the inspection of the appellant centre carried out on 26.09.2023 by the DIT as per Sections 67 & 68 of the Act, following deficiencies were pointed out:-

“1. Location of the center is not easily accessible place.

2. Patients not being kept at a safe and secure place.

3. Adolescents and adults not segregated.

4. Medical Officer not available. .

5. Social Worker not available.

6. Staff Nurse not available round the clock.

7. Vocational trainer not available.

8. In house/outsource lab facility not available.

9. Unique ID of inmates not maintaine

10. All patients have not seen by Doctor.

11. Patients not getting wholesome diet.

12. doctor prescriptions not available.

13. Discharge slips/summaries not available.

14. Details of procurement of drugs are not available in r/o purchase, expenses and stock of medicine.”

The appellant was directed to submit its action taken report in respect of each deficiency in a time bound manner. The respondent also directed the Chief Medical Officer (Chairman of DIT) to undertake fresh inspection of the appellant centre after requisite period.

2(v) To the above notice, the appellant furnished its reply to r