JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. The appellant, invoking provisions of Sections 69 and 83 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (herein-after referred to as ‘the Act’), has assailed impugned order dated 18.9.2024 (Annexure A-12) passed by respondent Chief Executive Officer, H.P. State Mental Health Authority-cum-Senior Medical Superintendent, whereby previous order dated 3rd February, 2024 cancelling registration of Rehabilitation Centre run by the appellant Society has been reiterated and by rejecting the application for renewal of registration of the Centre under Mental Healthcare Act, it has been further ordered that any further unauthorized de-addiction and rehabilitation activity in the said Centre shall invite the consequences in terms of Sections 107 and 108 of the Act, 2017 and it has also been directed that inmates admitted must be handed over to their families within 7 days positively under intimation to the office of respondent. This order was passed with prior approval of the Chairperson of HPSMHA-cum- Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 2 The appellant is a Society registered under the H.P. Societies Registration Act, 2006. It is running 50 bedded Rehabilitation Centre at Baddi, District Solan H.P. In pursuance to the application submitted by the Society for registration of its Centre under the Act, Provisional Registration Certificate was granted on 25.9.2019 (Annexure A-3), which was renewed on 25.9.2020 (Annexure A-4), 25.9.2021 (Annexure A-5) and lastly on 25.9.2022 (Annexure A-6) which was valid for one year. 3 On 25.9.2023, the appellant submitted an application for renewal of Provisional Certificate of its Mental Health Establishment by submitting an application to the Mental Health Authority with all necessary codal formalities. 4 On 4.11.2023, the appellant received a notice dated 4.11.2023 (Annexure A-8) under Section 65 of the Act, 2017; in furtherance to inspection conducted by the District Inspection Team under the chairmanship of the Chief Medical Officer, District Solan undertaken on 16.9.2023, as per the provisions contained under sections 67 and 68 of the Act, pointing out the following deficiencies in the Centre:- 1. Staff Nurse should be available round the clock. 2. Vocational trainer not available. 3. All patients have not been seen by doctor. 4. No general hospital is linked with the Centre for emergency services. 5. Record of medicines prescription by MO not available. Staff Nurse should be available round the clock. 2. Vocational trainer not available. 3. All patients have not been seen by doctor. 4. No general hospital is linked with the Centre for emergency services. 5. Record of medicines prescription by MO not available. 5 In aforesaid notice, the appellant Society was directed to submit a detailed action taken with respect to each deficiency pointed out by the Inspection Team with supporting documentary evidence within 5 days with rider that failing which it shall be assumed that appellant had nothing to say further in the matter and action shall be taken accordingly. 6 Subsequent to the aforesaid notice, appellant visited the office of respondent-Authority and Chief Medical Officer, Solan along with all valid documentation and record and requested the respondent-Authority to provide and supply Inspection Report prepared by Chief Medical Officer alleged to have been carried out by the District Inspection Team on 16.9.2023. According to appellant, copy was not supplied. 7 It is further case of appellant that it was complying with all requirements contemplated under the provisions of the Act and there was no occasion to point out any deficiency on account of which Provisional Registration granted in favour of the appellant could not have been renewed. 8 In the meantime, another inspection of the Mental Health Establishment of the appellant was carried on 22.12.2023 and on behalf of appellant, all mandatory requirements contemplated under the Act and being complied with by the appellant, were pointed out to the Inspection Team with request to withdraw the notice dated 4.11.2023. 9 Vide Office Order dated 3.2.2024 (Annexure A-10), which was received by the appellant on 7.2.2024, respondent passed the order to cancel the registration of appellant referring the provisions of Section 68(5) of the Act and direction was given to the appellant to hand over the admitted inmates to their families within 7 days. 10 Aforesaid office order dated 3.2.2024 was assailed by appellant by filing statutory appeal being FAO No 49 of 2024 before this High Court. 11 During pendency of aforesaid appeal, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 23.4.2024, constituted a Committee to inquire/examine the matter with respect to appeal filed against office order dated 3.2.2024. The Committee visited the premises of appellant on 14.5.2024 and said report (dated 24.5.2024) was placed on record of FAO No. 49 of 2024 on 25.7.2024. 11 During pendency of aforesaid appeal, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 23.4.2024, constituted a Committee to inquire/examine the matter with respect to appeal filed against office order dated 3.2.2024. The Committee visited the premises of appellant on 14.5.2024 and said report (dated 24.5.2024) was placed on record of FAO No. 49 of 2024 on 25.7.2024. According to the appellant, in the said Report, no deficiency was found in the existing Mental Health Establishment in reference. In view of said Report, appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 7th August, 2024 (Annexure A-11) directing the respondent/competent Authority to consider and decide the application for renewal of Establishment of the appellant in accordance with law taking into consideration the entire material available with it including the fresh Inspection Report. While disposing the appeal, it was also observed by learned Single Judge that from the material on record, especially for the fact that Committee inspected the Mental Health Establishment of appellant on 14.5.2024, it was apparent that Establishment was running whereas the Provisional Certificate was cancelled vide order dated 3.2.2024 and no interim order was passed in the appeal. 12 In compliance to aforesaid order, by referring the inspection dated 14.5.2024, undertaken by the Special Committee constituted vide Notification dated 23.4.2023, report whereof was submitted on 24.5.2024, the impugned Office Order dated 18.9.2024 was passed by referring the discrepancies and contraventions of statutory provisions contained under the Act with following details:- 1. When Committee members reached at spot it was found that Navkiran Foundation Drug Counselling Rehabilitation Society Baddi was operational and around 27 patients were admitted. 2. Staff nurse not available round the clock. 3 The purchase, expense and stock of medicine do not reconcile. 4. Registration of centre is not present. 5. Patients were not seen daily by doctor but for the last 3 months. 13 The aforesaid order dated 18.9.2024 is under challenged in present appeal. 14 According to learned counsel for the appellant, there is no deficiency or contravention of any term and condition contained under the Act, but for observations made by the Court in judgment dated 7.8.2024 regarding continuation of Mental Health Establishment even after passing of the impugned order dated 3.2.2024, application for renewal of appellant was rejected. 14 According to learned counsel for the appellant, there is no deficiency or contravention of any term and condition contained under the Act, but for observations made by the Court in judgment dated 7.8.2024 regarding continuation of Mental Health Establishment even after passing of the impugned order dated 3.2.2024, application for renewal of appellant was rejected. Copy of Report dated 24.5.2024, along with Inspection Report dated 14.5.2024 appended as Annexure-A therewith, has been placed on record with communication dated 25.7.2024 sent by the Senior Medical Superintendent-cum-Chief Executive Officer to the learned Advocate General. 15 Learned counsel for appellant has placed reliance on judgments dated 29th October, 2021 and 8th July, 2024 passed in FAO No. 221 of 2021 titled Freedom Home Welfare Society vs. Chief Executive Officer and FAO No. 07 of 2024 titled Nari Sewa Foundation Regd. (Trust) through its President vs. Chief Executive Officer, claiming that in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Benches have set aside the similar action of respondent- Authority. 16 In response, it has been admitted on behalf of respondents that Provisional Registration was accorded in favour of appellant on 25.9.2019 which was renewed time to time as referred supra, with further submission that appellant had submitted an affidavit of undertaking dated 23.6.2022 to adhere to minimum standard of service, placed on record as Annexure R-1. It has been submitted that mandate of the Act is to provide for mental healthcare and service for the persons with mental illness and to protect, promote and fulfill the rights of such persons during the delivery of mental healthcare and service and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, and being State Mental Health Authority, it becomes imperative on the part of the Authority to ensure proper enforcement and implementation of the Act, 2017 including the safe and proper atmosphere for the inmates in such Centres besides safeguarding their rights as prescribed under the Act, and to have a proper check of inmates. It has been submitted that during inspection several shortcomings and deficiencies were found in the Establishment which were specifically observed by the Inspection Committee in its Inspection Report and on failure to comply with provisions of the Act and remove the deficiencies, notice dated 4.11.2023 was issued to the appellant and thereafter, inspection of appellant’s Establishment was again carried out on 22.12.2023 wherein deficiencies were found as already referred supra. The report was submitted by the Chief Medical Officer vide letter dated 23.12.2023. It has been submitted that non-responsiveness of the appellant to notice dated 4.11.2023 as well as Inspection Report on re-inspection on 22.12.2023, the impugned order dated 3.2.2024 was rightly issued by the Competent Authority. Further that in the inspection on 14.5.2024, conducted by fresh Committee, the Centre was found fully functional, as intimated by Chief Medical Officer, Solan through E-mail dated 17.5.2024 despite cancellation of registration vide order dated 3.2.2024. 17 The appellant as well as respondents-State are relying upon the one and same check-list placed on record as Annexure A-15 with petition and Annexure R-1 with reply, required to be complied with for running Establishment/Centre. 18 Relevant Sections 67 and 68 of the Act read as under:- “67. Audit of mental health establishment.—(1) The Authority shall cause to be conducted an audit of all registered mental health establishments by such person or persons (including representatives of the local community) as may be prescribed, every three years, so as to ensure that such mental health establishments comply with the requirements of minimum standards for registration as a mental health establishment. (2) The Authority may charge the mental health establishment such fee as may be prescribed, for conducting the audit under this section. (3) The Authority may issue a show cause notice to a mental health establishment as to why its registration under this Act not be cancelled, if the Authority is satisfied that— (a) the mental health establishment has failed to maintain the minimum standards specified by the Authority; or (b) the person or persons or entities entrusted with the management of the mental health establishment have been convicted of an offence under this Act; or (c) the mental health establishment violates the rights of any person with mental illness. (4) The Authority may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the mental health establishment, if satisfied that the mental health establishment falls under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3), without prejudice to any other action which it may take against the mental health establishment, cancel its registration. (4) The Authority may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the mental health establishment, if satisfied that the mental health establishment falls under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (3), without prejudice to any other action which it may take against the mental health establishment, cancel its registration. (5) Every order made under sub-section (4) shall take effect— (a) where no appeal has been preferred against such order, immediately on the expiry of the period specified for preferring of appeal; and (b) where the appeal has been preferred against such an order and the appeal has been dismissed, from the date of the order of dismissal. (6) The Authority shall, on cancellation of the registration for reasons to be recorded in writing, restrain immediately the mental health establishment from carrying on its operations, if there is imminent danger to the health and safety of the persons admitted in the mental health establishment. (7) The Authority may cancel the registration of a mental health establishment if recommended by the Board to do so. 68. Inspection and inquiry.—(1) The Authority may, suo motu or on a complaint received from any person with respect to non-adherence of minimum standards specified by or under this Act or contravention of any provision thereof, order an inspection or inquiry of any mental health establishment, to be made by such person as may be prescribed. (2) The mental health establishment shall be entitled to be represented at such inspection or inquiry. (3) The Authority shall communicate to the mental health establishment the results of such inspection or inquiry and may after ascertaining the opinion of the mental health establishment, order the establishment to make necessary changes within such period as may be specified by it. (4) The mental health establishment shall comply with the order of the Authority made under sub-section (3). (5) If the mental health establishment fails to comply with the order of the Authority made under sub-section (3), the Authority may cancel the registration of the mental health establishment. (4) The mental health establishment shall comply with the order of the Authority made under sub-section (3). (5) If the mental health establishment fails to comply with the order of the Authority made under sub-section (3), the Authority may cancel the registration of the mental health establishment. (6) The Authority or any person authorised by it may, if there is any reason to suspect that any person is operating a mental health establishment without registration, enter and search in such manner as may be prescribed, and the mental health establishment shall co-operate with such inspection or inquiry and be entitled to be represented at such inspection or inquiry.” 19 Section 67 of the Act empowers the Authority to conduct the audit of all Registered Mental Health Establishments every three years for ensuring that such Mental Health Establishments comply with requirements of minimum standards for registration as a Mental Health Establishment, whereas Section 68 empowers the Authority to conduct the inspection or inquiry of all Mental Health Establishments suo motu or on complaint received from any person with respect to non-adherence to the minimum standard specified by and under this Act or contravention of any provision thereof. 20 The provision for cancellation of registration is in Section 67(4) as well as in Section 68(5) of the Act. The implementation of cancellation order passed in Section 67(4) is subject to provision of Section 67(5) of the Act, according to which, on preferring an appeal, the cancellation order shall not be implemented till dismissal of appeal. No such provision is provided against cancellation of registration under Section 68(5) of the Act. 21 Section 67(5) of the Act provides that cancellation of the registration order under Section 67(4) of the Act shall take effect where no appeal has been preferred against such order, immediately on the expiry of the period specified for preferring of appeal and where the appeal has been preferred against such an order and has been dismissed, from the date of the order of dismissal. 22 In Section 69, appeal against order of an Authority has been provided to High Court of State within 30 days of passing of order. 22 In Section 69, appeal against order of an Authority has been provided to High Court of State within 30 days of passing of order. 23 Though, there is also reference of Section 83 in cause title, however, it provides appeal to the High Court against order of Authority or Board, but the said provision is contained in Chapter XI dealing with the Mental Health Review Boards and therefore, provisions for appeal under Section 83 of the Act are related to the provisions of Chapter XI of the Act. However, neither in Section 69 nor in Section 83, there is provision for keeping the implementation of cancellation order in abeyance automatically for filing an appeal to the High Court. 24 For non-existence of similar provisions under Sections 68 or 69 and 83, intention of Legislature is clear that such automatic stay on filing appeal shall be available in the cases pertaining to Section 68 of the Act. 25 Therefore, unless or until there is an explicit stay against the cancellation order issued under Section 68(5) of the Act, its implementation would not be stayed automatically and, therefore, in absence of stay, the cancellation order shall take effect. 26 Section 68 provides inspection and inquiry and Section 68(3) of the Act provides that result of the inspection/inquiry has to be communicated to the Mental Health Establishment by the Authority and after ascertaining the opinion of Mental Health Establishment, order be made to the Establishment to make necessary changed within such period as may be specified by it. Section 68(4) of the Act mandates that Establishment shall comply with order of Authority made under Sub-section (3). According to Section 68(5) of the Act, if Mental Health Establishment fails to comply with order of the Authority made under Sub-section (3), the Authority may cancel the registration of Mental Health Establishment. 27 It is apparent from the aforesaid provisions that firstly, after Inspection Report is to be supplied to Mental Health Establishment and its opinion has to be called for and thereafter direction is to be given for necessary changes within specified period and on failure of compliance of such direction, the Authority “may” cancel the registration, meaning thereby that in appropriate cases, Authority is also competent to grant further time for necessary compliance. 28 It has been contended that after passing of order dated 3.2.2024, appellant had preferred appeal within limitation period and therefore, cancellation of registration was not operative till final disposal of appeal, which was decided on 7.8.2024. Whereas after passing of the order dated 3.2.2024, re-inspection of Establishment was also conduced on 14.5.2024 before passing of judgment dated 7.8.2024 in FAO No. 49 of 2024. Therefore, though it has been stated in order dated 3.2.2024 that the said cancellation order was passed under section 68(5) of the Act, however, respondent-Authority itself considering the said order inoperative and for that reason only, despite direction to hand over the inmates to their families within 7 days, no action was taken by the respondent-Authority rather inspection was conducted on 14.5.2024. 29 Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions, it is an admitted fact that appellant continued to run Mental Health Establishment even after cancellation order dated 3.2.2024, but under the impression that on filing an appeal there was no requirement for obtaining stay against said order. Respondent- Authority was also perhaps under the same impression and for this reason only it did not take any action to close the Mental Health Establishment. However, it was because of misconception. 30 The fact remains that Establishment being run by appellant continued and competent Authority inspected the same on 14.5.2024 during pendency of appeal and on the basis of said Inspection Report, fresh orders have been passed on 18.9.2024. Therefore, in case other minimum prescribed standards were and are being complied with by the appellant, the said continuation for want of continuation of registration, has not to be taken as ground for rejecting the application of appellant for renewal of the registration. 31 In present case, Office Order dated 3.2.2024 was passed on the basis of notice dated 4.11.2023 issued in sequel to inspection undertaken on 16.9.2023. As many as 11 deficiencies were pointed out on 16.9.2023. Office order dated 3.2.2024 was issued by referring the Inspection Reports dated 16.9.2023 and 22.12.2023 pointing out 11 deficiencies. 32 According to appellant, in subsequent inspection conducted on 22.12.2023, there was no deficiency and it appears that status of compliance at the time of inspection carried out on 22.12.2023 has been overlooked by the Authority. Office order dated 3.2.2024 was issued by referring the Inspection Reports dated 16.9.2023 and 22.12.2023 pointing out 11 deficiencies. 32 According to appellant, in subsequent inspection conducted on 22.12.2023, there was no deficiency and it appears that status of compliance at the time of inspection carried out on 22.12.2023 has been overlooked by the Authority. 33 During pendency of FAO No. 49 of 2024, fresh inspection was carried out on 14.5.2024 on the basis of which impugned order dated 18.9.2024 has been passed. Though, according to respondents, there are deficiencies pointed out in Inspection Report dated 22.12.2023, however, in report dated 14.5.2024, following deficiencies have been alleged:- 1. Registration of Centre is not present. 2. Patients were not seen daily by doctor but for last 3 months daily seen by doctor. 3. Pharmacist is available at night. 34 It is undisputed that Mental Health Establishment of appellant falls in Category-II i.e. Long Term Treatment Rehabilitation Centre (1 month or more) wherein admission is only after treatment for withdrawal and management of craving and relapse management counselling and occupational rehabilitation. The check-list applicable, required to be complied by Establishment, has been placed on record as Annexure A-15 and Annexure R-1. 35 In the check-list prepared during Inspection appended as Annexure-A with report dated 14.5.2024, compliance of every point has been recorded in positive except at Sr. Nos. 5, 10 and 28. 36 Serial No.5 is with respect to segregation of adolescents and adults and it has been reported that no adolescent was in Mental Health Establishment and therefore, this point was not applicable in present case. 37 At Sr. No.10 requisite number of Staff Nurses employed in the Centre has been verified, but with observation that round the clock, Staff Nurse was not available. As pointed out, there are minutes of meeting of the State Mental Health Authority, produced during the hearing, providing that someone either Nurse or Pharmacist should be available round the clock. In present matter, Committee has reported that Pharmacist was available at night. Therefore, the alleged deficiency at Sr. No.10 is also not relevant. 38 Further at Point No.B5 of check-list (Annexure P-15), requirement of Nursing Staff and Paramedic has been provided. With respect to Category-II Establishments, it is made mandatory that there shall be GNM/Paramedic (Pharmacist, Male, nurse/male health worker), GNM D. Pharma. Therefore, the alleged deficiency at Sr. No.10 is also not relevant. 38 Further at Point No.B5 of check-list (Annexure P-15), requirement of Nursing Staff and Paramedic has been provided. With respect to Category-II Establishments, it is made mandatory that there shall be GNM/Paramedic (Pharmacist, Male, nurse/male health worker), GNM D. Pharma. Therefore, non-availability of Staff Nurse round the clock but availability of Pharmacist during night is sufficient compliance of the condition contained in Point B5 of the check-list (Annexure A-15 and Annexure R-1). 39 At Sr. No. 28 it has been reported that date of purchase, expenses and stock of medicines was not properly reconciled. 40 With regard to aforesaid deficiency, mentioned at Sr. No.28, it has been rightly pointed out by learned counsel for appellant that no such requirement has been provided in the check-list (Annexure A-15) related to Rehabilitation Centre of the appellant. 41 In Point C8, detail of the record to be maintained by the Mental Health Establishment has been given. In Clause (C) of C8 details of requirement of record to be maintained by Category-II Mental Health Establishment has been given. In it, nowhere it has been provided that Category-II Establishment shall maintain record of purchase, expenses and stock of medicines which has to be reconciled. There is force in submission made by learned counsel for appellant that admission in Category-II Rehabilitation Centre is only after treatment for withdrawal and, therefore, there shall not be regular need to purchase and stock of medicines and, therefore, appellant’s Rehabilitation Centre was not maintaining the said record because medicines, in case of necessity, are purchased by inmates or through their family members/caretakers. 42 From the above discussion, it is apparent that in fact there is no deficiency pointed out by the Inspection Committee at the time of inspection conducted on 14.5.2024 and, therefore, impugned Office Order dated 18.9.2024 appears to have been issued without considering the essence of Inspection Report dated 14.5.2024. 43 It has been submitted that check-list(s) placed on record as Annexures A-15 and R-1 have been prepared on the basis of Model/Standards notified by the Central Government. 43 It has been submitted that check-list(s) placed on record as Annexures A-15 and R-1 have been prepared on the basis of Model/Standards notified by the Central Government. At this stage, it is also apt to record that under Section 55, especially Sub-sections 1(b) and 1(c), State Authority is empowered to develop quality and service  provision  norms  for  different  types  of  Mental  Health Establishments in the State; and to supervise all Mental Health Establishments in the State and receive complaints about deficiencies in provision of services. Therefore, in case it is considered necessary by the State Authority that certain other conditions are necessary to be imposed/notified to be complied with by Mental Health Establishments in the State of HP, it should undertake re-visiting of the norms/requirements notified by the State Authority and to incorporate such condition in relevant Norms, Notifications, Instructions/check-list. 44 It is also observed that impugned order is being set aside on the basis of Inspection Report dated 14.5.2024 which discloses no deficiency at all reported by the Inspection Committee. It shall not preclude the respondent/State Authority or any other competent Officer/Authority/Inspection Team to inspect the Mental Health Establishment of the appellant as provided under the relevant Act and Rules and to ensure maintenance of minimum standards as required to be maintained by the Mental Health Establishment and in case of deficiency, the respondent-Authority shall also be at liberty to initiate/take appropriate action in accordance with law as the findings returned in this appeal are based on given facts and circumstances placed on record especially Inspection Report dated 14.5.2024 which is made basis for issuance of Office Order. With aforesaid observations, order dated 18.9.2024 is quashed and set aside and appeal is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.