Introduction:

In a significant ruling emphasising the sanctity of natural justice, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, quashed the state’s order sealing and de-registering a fertility clinic. The court found that the authorities acted in a ‘haphazard manner’ without adhering to the principles of natural justice, notably failing to provide prior notice or an opportunity for the clinic to be heard. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding procedural fairness and the rights of medical establishments.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Contention:

The petitioner, operating a fertility clinic registered under Section 4(3) of the M.P. Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchaar Sambandhi Sthapnaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973, argued that the sealing of the clinic on August 14, 2024, was executed without any prior notice or opportunity for hearing. The clinic’s registration was valid until March 2027. The petitioner had applied for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) registration, which remained undecided. Despite complying with a notice from the Municipal Corporation regarding fire and life safety audits, the clinic was sealed based on certain complaints during the petitioner’s leave, without serving any notice or providing a copy of the panchnama.

Respondents’ Defence:

The state authorities contended that the clinic was conducting medical terminations of pregnancy without the requisite registration, justifying the sealing and cancellation of registration. They argued that the actions were taken in the public interest to prevent unauthorised medical procedures.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Abhyankar observed that the sealing of the clinic and the cancellation of its registration were executed without following the mandatory provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Specifically, Section 6(1) mandates a notice period of at least one calendar month, stating the grounds for intended cancellation, and providing an opportunity for the affected party to respond. The court noted that the respondents failed to specify under which legal provision the clinic was sealed and did not provide the petitioner with the required notice or hearing opportunity.

The court emphasised that such actions, taken without adhering to due process, are vitiated by the violation of natural justice principles. Consequently, the court quashed the order of cancellation of registration and directed the immediate unsealing of the clinic’s premises. However, it granted the respondents liberty to proceed against the petitioner by Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, ensuring proper notice and opportunity for hearing.