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

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Subodh Abhyankar, Alok Awasthi, JJ
WA 2813/2026 INDORE - M
WRIT APPEAL No. 2813 of 2026 | W.P. No.30615/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Hem Chandra Naik
For the Respondents: Amit Bhatia

Statutory notice periods for the cancellation of licenses must be strictly followed, and the authority must provide all relied-upon documents to the party to ensure a fair opportunity to show cause in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Show Cause Notice - Statutory Notice Period - Failure to provide the mandatory one-calendar-month notice as prescribed under Section 6(1) of the M.P. Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchaar Sambandhi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973, renders the notice procedurally flawed and unsustainable. (Para 5, 6)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Documents - Non-furnishing of documents relied upon by the authority to the noticee prevents a fair opportunity to respond and violates the principles of natural justice. (Para 6, 7)

Issues: Whether the show cause notices issued to the appellant for cancellation of license were valid given the failure to adhere to the statutory notice period and the failure to provide relied-upon documents.

ORDER

Per: Justice Subodh Abhyankar

1] This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant/Pushpa Mission Hospital & Maternity Home, Ujjain under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nayayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 31/07/2026 passed by in W.P. No.30615/2026, whereby the writ Court has disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner/appellant to file a detailed reply to the show cause notice issued to it for cancellation of its license, which was directed to be decided in accordance with law by the authority.

2] In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a hospital at Ujjain, and on 12/11/2022, a patient, Ramdulare Dubey, resident of Vidhyapati Nagar Colony, Ujjain died, regarding which a complaint was made to the competent authority, who had issued a show cause notice to the appellant on 14/07/2026 to show cause within 24 hours as to why appropriate action may not be taken against the appellant. In reply to the said show cause notice, the appellant also sought various documents on which the authorities were relying upon, however, instead of supplying the same, another show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 20/07/2026, this time granting 7 day's time to file the reply to the show cause notice, failing which it was directed that appropriate action shall be taken against the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred WP No.30615/2026, which was disposed of by the writ Court as aforesaid.

3] Counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 6(1) of M.P. Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchaar Sambandhi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan), Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Adhiniyam of 1973") in which, it is clearly provided that if any such show cause notice is issued to the person, the notice shall not be issued less than one calendar month, however, no such notice of one calendar month was issued to the appellant and initially only 24 hours were granted whereas in the second notice, 7 day's time was granted to the appellant, that too without furnishing the documents relied upon by the authority. In this regard, counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents supplied to the appellant under the RTI. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and consequently, the show cause notices issued to the appellant be also quashed as it has been issued in contravention to the provisions of Section 6(1) of Adhiniyam of 1973. In support of his submissions, counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.23763 of 2024 dated 17/03/2025 in the case of Sarvottam Suyash Clinic and Fertility Centre vs. State of M.P. and others .

4] Counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the impugned order was passed on the first day itself and the respondents also had no opportunity to contest the matter, however, it could not be denied that in the show cause notices, the provisions of Section 6(1) of Adhiniyam of 1973 have not been followed.

5] Heard. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the record, it is found that in both the notices dated 14/07/2026 and 20/07/2026 issued to the appellant, the authority has clearly erred in granting only 24 hours and 7 day's time respectively to the appellant to reply to the show cause notice, whereas Section 6(1) of Adhiniyam of 1973 reads as under:-

“6(1) Before making an order refusing an application for registration and license in respect of a nursing home or a clinical establishment or an order canceling any registration and license in respect thereof, the supervising authority shall give to the applicant or to the person registered and licensed not less than one calendar month's notice of its intention to make such an order and every such notice shal

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