Mandatory Compliance with Section 6(1) of the M.P. Adhiniyam, 1973: Due Process in Cancellation of Clinical Establishment Licensing

Introduction

Sarvottam Suyash Clinic & Fertility Centre, run by Dr. Smita Surendran at Shajapur, held valid registration under the Madhya Pradesh Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchaar Sambandhi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973 (“Adhiniyam, 1973”) until March 31, 2027. In January 2023 the clinic applied for an MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) registration, but faced inaction. On August 7, 2024 a spot inspection was followed by a sealing of the premises without notice or hearing. Thereafter on September 12, 2024 the State cancelled the clinic’s registration under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam.

Aggrieved, the petitioner invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to quash both the sealing order and the registration cancellation. Before the High Court at Indore, learned Senior Counsel Shri Aditya Sanghi argued that the respondents flagrantly violated the mandatory one‑month notice and hearing requirements under Section 6(1), breaching natural justice. The State defended the actions as justified by unauthorized MTP operations.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Subodh Abhyankar meticulously examined the statutory text of Section 6(1). He held that:

The two impugned notices (dated August 9 and 14, 2024) failed to give the required one calendar month’s notice before cancellation and did not specify an intention to cancel the clinic’s registration.
No genuine “show‑cause” hearing was offered—only a three‑day response window for deficiencies unrelated to deregistration.
The sealing of the premises likewise lacked any statutory provision or prior notice, violating principles of audi alteram partem.
The cancellation order dated September 12, 2024 was thus void—both procedurally and substantively.

Consequently, the Court quashed the cancellation, ordered immediate unsealing, and permitted the State to proceed afresh in strict compliance with Section 6(1). The remedy of appeal was held illusory given the clear breach of mandatory procedure.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Harbanslal Sahnia & Anr. v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. (2003 2 SCC 107): Reinforced the requirement of a fair hearing before punitive administrative action.
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer (2023 SCC Online SC 95): Emphasised that notices must clearly state grounds for intended action.
Dr. Shivraj Chhotulal Pataria v. BMC (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1384): Held that health‑sector establishments enjoy the same procedural safeguards before licensing actions.
Dr. Sanjay Jain v. State Of M.P. (MCRC 5465/2020) & Jash Hospital Research Center v. Deen Dayal Swasthya Suraksha Parishad (W.P. 6430/2021): M.P. High Court decisions stressing mandatory hearings under the Adhiniyam.
Madhukar Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh (2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1561): Demonstrated the invalidity of retrospective or hurried cancellation without notice.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s interpretation of Section 6(1) proceeded in three steps:

Statutory Text: Section 6(1) mandates “not less than one calendar month's notice” specifying grounds and an opportunity to “show cause.”
Procedural Violation: The August 2024 notices neither complied with the one‑month timeline nor conveyed any intention to cancel registration—they referred only to safety deficiencies and imminent sealing “in public interest.”
Principles of Natural Justice: The Court reiterated that audi alteram partem is a constitutional imperative. Denial of a genuine hearing rendered both sealing and cancellation void ab initio.

Impact

This ruling establishes a binding precedent for all regulatory authorities under the Adhiniyam, 1973:

Administrative bodies must strictly comply with Section 6(1) before cancelling any clinical establishment’s registration.
Sealing or closure of healthcare facilities without clear statutory backing and prior notice will be liable to be quashed.
The judgment reinforces broader administrative law principles: statutory procedure cannot be bypassed even in the face of alleged public interest.
Future litigants challenging regulatory actions will rely on this decision to insist on fair hearing and reasoned notices.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 6(1): A provision that protects registered clinical establishments by requiring at least one month’s written notice of intent to cancel their license, with stated reasons and a right to be heard.
Audi alteram partem: The “hear the other side” principle of natural justice—no one should be condemned without a fair opportunity to defend.
Impugned Order: The governmental action under challenge—in this case, sealing and cancellation.
Certiorari: A judicial writ quashing an inferior authority’s decision that violates law or procedure.
Efficacious Remedy: A legal remedy that truly addresses the grievance and is practically available (here, appeal was deemed ineffective).

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision underscores that procedural safeguards are not mere formalities—they are mandatory dictates of statutory law and constitutional fairness. By quashing the cancellation and sealing for non‑compliance with Section 6(1) and natural justice, the Court has fortified the rights of healthcare establishments against administrative overreach. This judgment will serve as a cornerstone in administrative law, ensuring that every regulatory authority adheres strictly to the letter and spirit of the procedures it enacts.