$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2484/2026 and CM APPL. 12067-69/2026 DR. RITA GROVER .....Petitioner Through: Mr Avi Singh Senior Advocate with Mr Jinendra Jain, Mr Krishna Sharma, Ms Nalinaksha Singh, Ms Bijay Lakshmi, Mr, M.N. Mishra, Mr Manoj Gautam, Ms Kashish Gupta, Advocates.

versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 20.02.2026 W.P.(C) 2484/2026 and CM APPL. 12067-68/2026

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2484/2026 and CM APPL. 12069/2026

1. Mr. Avi Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 01.12.2025, the respondent has cancelled the registration for the hospital run by the petitioner, under Delhi Nursing Home Registration Act, 1953 (the Act). The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the said order before the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, who has rejected the same vide the impugned order dated 17.02.2026.

2. The impugned action has been taken by the respondent, allegedly, on account of the hospital being operated in additional floors of the hospital- building, whereas registration was obtained only for certain floors, and various other discrepancies.

3. According to Mr. Singh, the impugned action is ultra vires the provisions of the Act, and disproportionate to the alleged discrepancies. He submits that the usage of additional floors of the hospital-building was only a temporary measure owing to certain repair/renovation work being undertaken therein.

4. He further submits that the alleged discrepancies had duly been rectified prior to the passing of the impugned orders and no fresh inspection had been conducted after submission of the final reply dated 10.11.2025 along with documentary proof.

5. It is seen from the impugned order that the petitioner was granted opportunity to rectify the deficiencies through rectification notice dated 21.08.2025, after which the premises was re-inspected on 29.09.2025. Pursuant thereto, show cause notice dated 22.10.2025 was issued prior to the impugned action.

6. Mr. Singh, places reliance on a decision passed by this Court in the case of Association of Healthcare Providers (India) vs. Government of NCT of Delhi dated 24.07.2019 to contend that submits that though an opportunity of hearing was granted by the Appellate Authority, however, there was no opportunity of hearing granted before the license was cancelled by the Original Authority. Paragraph nos.47, 48 and 52(ii) of the said decision are extracted as under:-

“....

47. Conjointly read, therefore, cancellation of the registration of a hospital, or a nursing home, could only be justified on the ground of existence of one, or more, of the circumstances in which a request for registration of such nursing home could be refused, as contemplated by the proviso to Section 5 of the said Act.

48. Cancellation of the registration of a hospital or a nursing home is an extreme step, fraught with serious and debilitating consequences. It affects, not only the hospital, but also all its employees and the patients who may be admitted, therein. This is a step which is required to be taken with extreme care, caution and circumspection. It is obviously for this reason that the legislator had thought it appropriate to limit the circumstances in which registration of an existing nursing home or hospital could be cancelled, to one of those contemplated by clauses (a)

to (d) of the proviso to Section 5 (1) of the DNHR Act.

.....

52. ...

(ii) Before proceeding to cancel the registration of any nursing home/hospital, on the ground of failure, on the part of such nursing home/hospital, to comply with the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the DGHS would grant an opportunity to the allegedly defaulting nursing home/hospital to represent against such proposed cancellation of its registration. The nursing home/hosp