SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Navkiran Foundation Regd. (Society), through its President Mr. Kiran Kumar - Appellant
Versus 
Chief Executive Officer, HP State Mental Health Authority-cum-Senior Medical Superintendent – Respondent
FAO (MHA) No. 289 of 2024
Decided On : 16-09-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Bhanvi Negi and Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Registration cancellation under Mental Healthcare Act s.68(5) invalid absent actual deficiencies post-inspection compliance opportunity; Category-II rehabilitation norms satisfied by night pharmacist, no medicine reconciliation required; renewal not deniable for post-cancellation operations without stay.

Headnote:(A) Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Sections 65, 67, 68, 69, 83, 107, 108 - Mental health establishment - Registration cancellation and renewal - Provisional registration renewed multiple times; inspections alleged deficiencies like round-the-clock staff nurse absence, medicine records non-reconciliation - Fresh committee inspection found centre operational with patients, but alleged deficiencies not substantive as pharmacist available at night satisfying staffing norms for Category-II long-term rehabilitation centres, no medicine reconciliation required for such centres admitting post-withdrawal patients - Prior cancellation during pendency of appeal without stay not ground for rejecting renewal if latest inspection shows compliance - Impugned order passed without considering inspection report essence quashed. (Paras 12, 34-43)

(B) Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Section 68 - Inspection and cancellation procedure - Authority must communicate inspection results, seek opinion, direct changes with time; cancellation only on non-compliance - No automatic stay on appeal under s.68(5) unlike s.67(5); continued operation post-cancellation without explicit stay does not imply deficiencies. (Paras 20-30)

Facts of the case:
Provisional registration granted for 50-bedded Category-II rehabilitation centre, renewed yearly till 2022; 2023 renewal application followed by inspections on 16.9.2023 and 22.12.2023 noting deficiencies; notice issued, registration cancelled 3.2.2024; appeal disposed directing reconsideration per fresh committee inspection on 14.5.2024; impugned order 18.9.2024 reiterated cancellation and rejected renewal citing operation post-cancellation, staffing, medicine issues.

Findings of Court:
No deficiencies in 14.5.2024 report: segregation inapplicable (no adolescents); staffing compliant via night pharmacist; medicine reconciliation not mandated for Category-II centres relying on family-supplied medicines; authority at liberty for future inspections.

Issues: Whether alleged deficiencies justified registration cancellation and renewal rejection; procedural compliance under ss.67,68; effect of continued operations during appeal pendency.

Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation under s.68(5) requires inspection communication, compliance opportunity, actual failure; Category-II norms do not mandate round-the-clock nurses if pharmacist covers, or medicine stock reconciliation; rejection based on misinterpreted inspection invalid; State may revise norms under s.55.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

The appellant, invoking provisions of Sections 69 and 83 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (herein-after referred to as ‘the Act’), has assailed impugned order dated 18.9.2024 (Annexure A-12) passed by respondent Chief Executive Officer, H.P. State Mental Health Authority-cum-Senior Medical Superintendent, whereby previous order dated 3rd February, 2024 cancelling registration of Rehabilitation Centre run by the appellant Society has been reiterated and by rejecting the application for renewal of registration of the Centre under Mental Healthcare Act, it has been further ordered that any further unauthorized de-addiction and rehabilitation activity in the said Centre shall invite the consequences in terms of Sections 107 and 108 of the Act, 2017 and it has also been directed that inmates admitted must be handed over to their families within 7 days positively under intimation to the office of respondent. This order was passed with prior approval of the Chairperson of HPSMHA-cum- Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh.

2 The appellant is a Society registered under the H.P. Societies Registration Act, 2006. It is running 50 bedded Rehabilitation Centre at Baddi, District Solan H.P. In pursuance to the application submitted by the Society for registration of its Centre under the Act, Provisional Registration Certificate was granted on 25.9.2019 (Annexure A-3), which was renewed on 25.9.2020 (Annexure A-4), 25.9.2021 (Annexure A-5) and lastly on 25.9.2022 (Annexure A-6) which was valid for one year.

3 On 25.9.2023, the appellant submitted an application for renewal of Provisional Certificate of its Mental Health Establishment by submitting an application to the Mental Health Authority with all necessary codal formalities.

4 On 4.11.2023, the appellant received a notice dated 4.11.2023 (Annexure A-8) under Section 65 of the Act, 2017; in furtherance to inspection conducted by the District Inspection Team under the chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer, District Solan undertaken on 16.9.2023, as per the provisions contained under sections 67 and 68 of the Act, pointing out the following deficiencies in the Centre:-

1. Staff Nurse should be available round the clock.
2. Vocational trainer not available.
3. All patients have not been seen by doctor.
4. No general hospital is linked with the Centre for emergency services.
5. Record of medicines prescription by MO not available.



5 In aforesaid notice, the appellant Society was directed to submit a detailed action taken with respect to each deficiency pointed out by the Inspection Team with supporting documentary evidence within 5 days with rider that failing which it shall be assumed that appellant had nothing to say further in the matter and action shall be taken accordingly.

6 Subsequent to the aforesaid notice, appellant visited the office of respondent-Authority and Chief Medical Officer, Solan along with all valid documentation and record and requested the respondent-Authority to provide and supply Inspection Report prepared by Chief Medical Officer alleged to have been carried out by the District Inspection Team on 16.9.2023. According to appellant, copy was not supplied.

7 It is further case of appellant that it was complying with all requirements contemplated under the provisions of the Act and there was no occasion to point out any deficiency on account of which Provisional Registration granted in favour of the appellant could not have been renewed.

8 In the meantime, another inspection of the Mental Health Establishment of the appellant was carried on 22.12.2023 and on behalf of appellant, all mandatory requirements contemplated under the Act and being complied with by the appellant, were pointed out to the Inspection Team with request to withdraw the notice dated 4.11.2023.

9 Vide Office Order dated 3.2.2024 (Annexure A-10), which was received by the appellant on 7.2.2024, respondent passed the order to cancel the registration of a


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top