Madhya Pradesh HC Quashes Order Sealing Fertility Clinic, Says It Violated Natural Justice Priniciples & Was Passed In 'Haphazard Manner'

Justice Subodh Abhyankar in his order observed, “…so far as the sealing of the petitioner's premises is concerned which was also sealed on 14.8.2024, it is also vitiated on account of the same infirmity, i.e., no prior notice was given to the petitioner, and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, the respondents have also not stated in their reply as to under which provision of law, the clinic has been sealed…this Court finds that admittedly, the respondent has passed the order in a haphazard manner without properly complying with the mandatory provisions of Adhiniyam,1973, which is apparent on the face of record, and the principles of natural justice have also been clearly and flagrantly violated, in such circumstances, the remedy of appeal cannot be said to be an efficacious remedy and no purpose would be served to relegate the petitioner to file an appeal.”

The petition was filed against the alleged illegal sealing of the petitioner's premises i.e. the clinic and fertility centre. Thereafter, the registration of petitioner's clinic was also cancelled which has also been challenged in the petition.

The petitioner clinic was being run and operated by a doctor who was also working as a Post Graduate Medical Officer in District Hospital, Shajapur since 2010. As per the plea, the clinic was registered under Section 4(3) of M.P. Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchaar Sambandhi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan), Adhiniyam 1973 and its registration and licence was valid till March 2027. Since it was operating as fertility centre, a request was made to the respondent no.3/Chief Medical and Health Officer for grant of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) registration, but the same was not decided. However, respondent no. 5/Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner to get an audit done in respect of the fire and life safety and submit its report, which was duly complied with by the petitioner.

The petitioner once again applied for issuance of MTP registration. Thereafter, while the petitioner was on leave, the respondents visited the petitioner's clinic on the basis of certain complaints, and conducted a spot inspection, and thereafter, sealed the premises without serving any notice and without providing a copy of the panchnama.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the premises could not have been sealed without following the principle of natural justice. Further, during the pendency of the petition, the respondents passed an order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner's clinic.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the sealing order.

On the contrary, the counsel for respondents submitted that the petitioner had been carrying out the medical termination of pregnancy without any registration which led the respondents to pass the aforesaid order.

After hearing the parties, the Court referred to Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam 1973 and noted that before cancelling the Registration of any person under the Adhiniyam, 1973, it is mandatory for the authority to give not less than one calendar months' notice of its intention to make such an order. Moreover, every such notice shall state the grounds on which the supervising authority intended to make the order.

The court further noted that in the notices served to the petitioner the respondents did not inform the petitioner that they intend to cancel its registration, and an intimation that they would be held responsible for any action taken against them.

“Both these notices clearly reveal that the respondents have not complied with any of the conditions as prescribed under Section 6(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1973 namely, that the notice has not been given of one calendar month, and secondly, its intention to pass an order of cancellation of registration of the private clinic.”, the Court said.

The Court therefore, quashed the order of cancellation of registration of the petitioner's clinic and directed the respondents to unseal petitioner's premises with immediate effect.

“However, with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 and after serving a proper notice and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,” the Court said.

Case Title: Sarvottam Suyash Clinic And Fertility Centre v/s State Of Madhya Pradesh  & Others

Writ Petition No. 23764 Of 2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 82

Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Kushagra Jain