# Al Habib Hospital Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 782
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1488 of 2026
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/al-habib-hospital-pvt-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54307
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
19. I am of the considered view that the order dated 01.08.2022, passed by the Child
Welfare Committee, Ayodhya, has been passed without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set
aside by taking its cognizance suo motu in exercise of the power of superintendence conferred upon
this court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

20. Accordingly, the order dated 01.08.2022, passed by the Child Welfare Committee,
Ayodhya granting visitation rights to the petitioner is hereby set aside. As a consequence of this
order, reliefs 1, 2, and 3 of the petition become redundant. The proper proceeding instituted by the
petitioner claiming custody/visitation is the application under Section 7/25 of the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890, filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya, bearing Suit No. 13 of
2025. However, there is no averment as to whether notices of the aforesaid case have been served
on the defendant - opposite party no.7 and whether it is ripe for hearing.

21. Keeping in view the interest of the children, a direction is issued to the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Ayodhya, to decide Suit No.13 of 2025, under Section 7/27 of Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 expeditiously in accordance with law, after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to
the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing
dates at short intervals.

22. It is being left to the discretion of the Family Court that in case numerous proceedings
between the parties are pending in the Family Court, the Family Court may consider the efficacy of
connecting the cases and deciding them together.

23. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed off .
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 782
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1488 of 2026

Al Habib Hospital Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Matter pertains to the validity of an Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2026 issued by the Chief
Medical Officer whereby the registration of the petitioner's hospital was cancelled without
issuance of any show cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing, under Section 32 of the
Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010; and the legality of the direction
for immediate closure of the hospital.
3 All. Al Habib Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
HEADNOTE
Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 - s.32 - Cancellation of
registration of hospital - Registration of petitioner hospital cancelled by Office Memorandum
dated 24.01.2026 - Cancellation made on basis of inquiry report submitted on the same date -
No show cause notice issued and no opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner - Order
directing immediate closure of hospital also passed - Constitution of India - Art.226 - Challenge
in writ jurisdiction - Justification:

Held: Section 32(2) of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 requires that only
after giving a reasonable opportunity to the clinical establishment, and if the authority is satisfied that there
has been breach of any provision of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, it may, by an order, cancel its
registration - Section 32 further provides that an order of cancellation of registration may take effect only if
no appeal has been preferred or the appeal preferred has been dismissed -
In the present case, the impugned order was passed on the very date of submission of the inquiry report itself
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Impugned order does not disclose as to which
provision of the Act or Rules had been violated by the petitioner - Impugned order further directed the Nodal
Officer to stop functioning of the hospital with immediate effect.
Court held that the order had been passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Clinical
Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 as well as the principles of natural justice and was
unsustainable in law - Direction for immediate closure of the hospital was also contrary to Section 32 as
cancellation takes effect only upon expiry of the period of appeal or dismissal of the appeal preferred
thereagainst.
Impugned Office Memorandum quashed - Petitioner permitted to run hospital in terms of Medical
Establishment Certificate - Liberty granted to the Chief Medical Officer to proceed afresh in accordance with
law under Section 32 of the Act.[Paras 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15] (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
NIL

List of Acts
Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010;
Constitution of India
List of Keyword
Cancellation of registration; Clinical establishment; Hospital registration; Show cause notice; Opportunity of
hearing; Principles of natural justice; Immediate closure of hospital; Inquiry report; Violation of statutory
procedure; Writ jurisdiction.
CASE ARISING FROM
From the Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2026 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich cancelling
registration of the petitioner hospital.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Akram Azad, Abhay Kumar Saxena, Mohd. Taiyab, Sayyed Farooq Ahmad.
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., Sumit Chauhan.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

 1. Heard Shri Sayyed Farooq Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chif Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and
Shri Sumit Chauhan, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No.4.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the validity of an Office Memorandum dated 24.01.2026 issued by the
Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich whereby the registration of the petitioner?s hospital has been
canceled.

3. The petitioner has established a hospital under the name and style of ?Al Habib
Hospital? at Salarganj, Bahraich. The Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich has issued a Medical
Establishment Certificate, which is valid for a period of five years with effect from 15.05.2025, for
providing both IPD and OPD services on 10 beds of the Hospital.

4. The opposite party No.4 submitted a complaint through IGRS portal against running of
the hospital in a residential area. The Chief Medical Officer conducted an inquiry and submitted a
report before the District Magistrate, Bahraich on 25.07.2025 stating that the petitioner has
produced all the relevant documents, including the building sanction plan, bio-medical waste
disposal authorization letter, No Objection Certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board, No
Objection Certificate issued by the Fire Safety Department, receipts issued by Nagar Palika
Parishad and Registration Certificate of the Hospital. The report also states that the petitioner has
informed that it has taken a vacant plot of land measuring three biswa for being used for parking of
vehicles and he has engaged a security guard to manage the parking. The Chief Medical Officer
recommended closure of the complaint against the petitioner.

5. On 22.01.2026, the opposite party No.4 filed Writ C No.8491 of 2026. The Writ Petition
was taken up for hearing for the first time on 09.02.2026, on which date, it was informed to the
Court that the license of the petitioner has already been cancelled on 24.01.2026.

6. The provision for cancellation of registration is contained in Section 32 of the Clinical
Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 which provides as follows: -

 "32. Cancellation of registration.-

 (1) If, at any time after any clinical establishment has been registered, the authority is
satisfied that,? (a) the conditions of the registration are not being complied with; or

 (b) the person entrusted with the management of the clinical establishment has been
convicted of an offence punishable under this Act, it may issue a notice to the clinical establishment
to show cause within three months' time as to why its registration under this Act should not be
cancelled for the reasons to be mentioned in the notice. (2) If after giving a reasonable opportunity
3 All. Al Habib Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
to the clinical establishment, the authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of any of the
provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, it may, by an order, without prejudice to any
other action that it may take against such clinical establishment, cancel its registration. (3) Every
order made under sub-section (2) shall take effect? (a) where no appeal has been preferred against
such order immediately on the expiry of the period prescribed for such appeal; and

 (b) where such appeal has been preferred and it has been dismissed from the date of the
order of such dismissal: Provided that the authority, after cancellation of registration for reasons
to be recorded in writing, may restrain immediately the clinical establishment from carrying on if
there is imminent danger to the health and safety of patients."

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither any show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order dated 24.01.2026, nor was the
petitioner afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order. Therefore, the
order has been passed in violation of the provisions contained in Section 32 (1) and (2) of the
Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010.

8. The impugned cancellation order dated 24.01.2026 states that it has been passed on the
basis of an inquiry report of the same date and a copy of the inquiry report dated 24.01.2026 has
also not been provided to the petitioner. The impugned order does not mention as to which
provisions of the Act or the Rules have been breached by the petitioner.

9. Replying to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned A.C.S.C. has submitted on the basis of written instructions provided by Chief Medical
Officer, Bahraich that it is stated in the inquiry report that the petitioner was called upon to place its
version but no satisfactory reply was found. A copy of the written instructions is taken on record.

10. The instructions are silent on the point as to how the petitioner was called for placing
its version before the inquiry committee and whether or not the petitioner submitted any reply. The
statement that no satisfactory reply was found, does not indicate as to whether no reply was
submitted at all or whether the reply submitted was not found to be satisfactory.

10. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry committee has
not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and since no opportunity was given, the
petitioner had no occasion to give any explanation before the inquiry committee. Further, even the
instructions do not state that after submission of the inquiry report dated 24.01.2026, any
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and on the date of submission of the inquiry
report itself, the impugned cancellation order has been passed.

11. The learned A.C.S.C. next submitted that after cancellation of the registration, the
petitioner has obtained registration from Regional Ayurvedic and Yunani Officer, Bahraich for
running a clinic. He has submitted that since the petitioner is now running an ayurvedic clinic, the
petition has become infructuous as an ayurvedic clinic and an allopathic Hospital cannot be run
simultaneously in the same premises.
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. In reply to the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that there is no provision in any law prohibiting running of an ayurvedic clinic in a premises in
which an allopathic hospital is running. He has submitted that the petitioner had applied for
permission to run an outpatient ayurvedic clinic in its premises and the permission which has been
granted, specifically imposes numerous restrictions on the petitioner. He has submitted that the
petitioner has not applied for providing IPD ayurvedic services. Further, the registration of
ayurvedic clinic is temporary and it would lapse on 31.03.2026 and the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that in case the illegal cancellation of the petitioner's registration made by
the impugned office memorandum dated 24.01.2026 is set-aside, the petitioner will not run an
ayurvedic clinic in the said premises.

13. The impugned order directs the Nodal Officer to stop functioning of the hospital with
immediate effect whereas Section 32 (2) of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and
Regulation) Act, 2010 provides that an order of cancellation of registration may take effect only if
no appeal has been preferred or the appeal preferred has been dismissed. Therefore, the order for
closure of the hospital with immediate effect is not permissible in law is violative of the provision
contained in Section 32 (2) of the Act.

14. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, when it is clear from the averments made in the
petition and the instructions and the documents provided to the learned A.C.S.C. that the impugned
order has been passed on the date of submission of inquiry report itself without giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order has been passed in violation of provision
contained in Section 32 of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 as
well as the principles of natural justice and it is unsustainable in law.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned office memorandum dated
24.01.2026 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be
allowed to run the hospital registered under the Medical Establishment Certificate dated 15.05.2025
granted by the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich. However, the Chief Medical Officer, Bahraich is granted
liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law keeping in view the provision of
Section 32 of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 786
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 1722 of 2026

Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents