The power to cancel a clinical establishment's registration is vested solely in the specifically designated statutory authority. An official acting outside this defined scope, or failing to adhere to mandatory notice periods, acts without jurisdiction, thereby justifying judicial intervention regardless of available alternative appellate remedies.

JUDGMENT :

Arindam Sinha, J.

1. Petitioners engaged in running a hospital have provisional registration. They have challenged orders dated 10th March, 2026 of sealing and 18th March, 2026 of cancellation made by respondent no. 3 (the Chief Medical Officer/CMO). Reliance is on section 32 in Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 for contention that cancellation of registration can only be done by the authority. Definition of authority is provided by clause (a) in section 2. Reliance has also been on section 10, which provides for the authority to have the District Collector as Chairperson, the District Health Officer as convenor and three members possessing prescribed qualifications, to be appointed on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. In the circumstances, the CMO cannot be said to be the authority to exercise power of cancellation of registration certificate. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners.

2. The writ petition is up for final hearing upon opportunity granted to State for obtaining instructions. Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and to begin with relies on sub-section (2) in section 10. The sub-section is reproduced below.

"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), for the purposes of provisional registration of clinical establishments under section 14, the District Health Officer or the Chief Medical Officer (by whatever name called) shall exercise the powers of the authority as per procedure that may be prescribed."

(emphasis supplied)

He then relies upon sections 14 and 32 (2).

3. Dr. Tiwari hands up Uttar Pradesh Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2016. He relies on rule 13, reproduced below.

"Rule - 13. The District Registering Authority.

The State Government shall, by notification, under section-10, of the Act and in accordance with the rules farmed by central Government in this behalf set up an authority to be called the District Registering Authority for each district for registration of clinical establishments."

Without prejudice he submits further, there was notification dated 14th December, 2017 issued. He points out from it, timelines have been provided on efficacious alternative remedy petitioners can avail by filing application, first and second appeals.

4. Dr. Tiwari proceeds to rely on view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Medaxis Hospital v. State of U.P. reported in 2019 (9) ADJ 77, paragraphs 13 and 14 (Lawsuit print). The paragraphs are reproduced below.

"[13] From the conjoint reading of the sections referred to above what: emerges is that the "authority" is the Committee constituted under section 10 of the Act, 2010 in which the District Collector is the Chairperson and the District Health Officer or the Chief Medical Officer (by whatever name called), shall exercise the powers of the authority as per procedure that may be prescribed. This means that for the purpose of provisional registration of clinical establishment this is the Committee which will consider whether registration has to be granted or not. Thereafter the registration itself will be granted by the "authority" i.e. the Chief Medical Officer.

[14] Section 32 of the Act, 2010 also refers to the "authority" which means the Chief Medical Officer, who is the competent authority to cancel the registration of the clinical establishment."

He submits, the cancellation was duly made. No interference is warranted. Nevertheless, he reiterates, petitioners if aggrieved have efficacious alternative remedy.

5. Mr. Gupta