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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1666

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
M/ s. Nani Mini Hospital - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24286 of 2025
Decided On : 18-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R Anurag
For the Respondent: GP For Medical Health FW

The court upheld the lawful seizure of a hospital due to unauthorized medical practices, affirming compliance with statutory procedures and the protection of public health.

Headnote:(A) Telangana Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002 - Sections 22; Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 - Sections 20, 22; National Medical Commission Act, 2019 - Sections 34, 54; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Sections 318(4), 319(2). - Allegations of unauthorized medical practice against a registered hospital - Seizure of hospital premises under statutory provisions - Court held action justified as per established laws. (Paras 6-9)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of opportunity to explain - Petitioner claimed lack of due process in action leading to hospital seizure, yet Court ruled opportunities were provided. (Paras 7-8)

(C) Public Health - Concerns. - Court emphasized that actions by respondents were aimed at safeguarding public health from unqualified medical practices. (Paras 6-9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that their registered hospital was seized without proper notice or opportunity to respond to the inspection findings which claimed unauthorized practices were occurring.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the actions of the respondents, indicating they complied with statutory requirements, thus justifying the seizure to protect public health.

Issues: The main issues were the lack of proper notice before the seizure and the validity of the inspections that led to the FIR against an individual practicing medicine without proper qualifications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the respondents acted within their statutory powers, and the seizure was conducted lawfully under regulations to prevent public health risks.

Result: The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts regarding the hospital's establishment and the allegations against it. (Para 1)
2. respondent's defense and legal justification for the inspection and subsequent actions. (Para 2)
3. further clarification of legal procedures and compliance by respondents. (Para 3)
4. court's analysis of statutory powers and decision-making. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
5. final conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)

ORDER:

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner stated that hospital is a registered allopathic private medical care establishment, established in the year 2019, and operating continuously under a valid Certificate of Registration issued by the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Telangana Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002, which remains in force until 18.11.2029. They employ qualified and registered medical practitioners, providing essential healthcare services to poor and needy at affordable costs. The hospital also employs several non-medical staff such as nurses, ward assistants and administrative personnel whose livelihood depends on the continued functioning of the hospital.

1.1. It is stated, on 05.07.2025, Respondent No. 3 – Telangana Medical Council conducted inspection of the hospital in a hasty and irregular manner which resulted in registering FIR No. 401 of 2025 on 23.07.2025 against Mr. Kommu Venkateshan, alleging unauthorized practice of allopathic medicine. The delay between the date of inspection and registration of FIR casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the allegations; the inspection report did not specify any violations, deficiencies or deviations from medical standards, and no findings were ever communicated in writing to petitioner hospital.

1.2. Petitioner further stated that as per law, every inspection must be reduced into writing and a copy be furnished to the establishment concerned to enable it to submit an explanation in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In this case, no such report or opportunity was given to petitioner, hence, failure to furnish the report or seek an explanation before taking drastic action constitutes gross violation of the principles of natural justice and renders the process arbitrary and mechanical.

1.3. According to petitioner, the inspection conducted by Respondent No. 3 did not identify any patient allegedly being treated by an unauthorized person. The impugned seizure notice fails to mention any patient name, treatment details or evidence of administration of medicines by an unqualified individual. This shows that inspection was carried out with a premeditated intention to close down the hospital rather than to ensure compliance with standards. Petitioner contended that respondents’ action has caused immense damage to hospital’s reputation, leading to loss of goodwill and trust among patients and the local community.

1.4. Petitioner stated that on 04.08.2025, respondent authorities entered the hospital premises and seized the same without issuing prior notice or affording an opportunity to explain and not furnishing the inspection report is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They furnished a copy of seizure notice dated 29.07.2025, wherein it was alleged that Mr. Kommu Venkateshan S/o Bajaiah, purportedly a Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (BAMS) graduate without an MBBS degree, was running the hospital. It is clarified that the allegation is false as the hospital is being lawfully managed by Dr. D. Koushal along with other qualified doctors, namely Dr. Gopi A, Dr. Arvind Reddy, Dr. Bhavya Reddy Adla, and Dr. Shravan. Mr. Kommu Venkateshan is not a BAMS graduate but a duly-trained Multipurpose Health Assistant (MPHA), whose duties are limited to assisting doctors, taking vitals, maintaining records and providing first aid. Seizure based on such false assumption is arbitrary, high- handed and mala fide, intended to disrupt the operations of

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 Back to top