1 2025:CGHC:57859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5984 of 2025 1. Dr. Ravi Kumar Goyal S/o Nand Kishor Goyal Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Doctor, R/o C G Dental Hospital, Near City Kotwali, Chhotapara Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh And Proprietor Of Chhattisgarh Dental Hospital Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Health And Family Welfare Department, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer/ State Agency Ayushman Bharat Jan Arogya Yojna Evam Mukhya Mantri Swasthya Bima Yojna, 2nd Floor, Old Nursing Hostel Behind D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Medical And Health Officer Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer Motibagh Road, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (CG) 5. C.G. State Dental Council Through Its Registrar, C.G. State Dental Council, 3rd Floor, Dental Department, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur Chhattisgarh 6. Care Health Insurance Limited (Formerly Known As Religare Health Insurance Company Limited) Through Its Director, 2 Registered Office At 5th Floor, 19 Chawla House, Nehru Place, New Delhi ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj V Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 01/12/2025 1. Annexure P-1 is an order passed on 30.9.2025 against the petitioner and perusal of which would show that registration of petitioner was cancelled and consequence of which is, name of petitioner has been removed from the register of Dentists maintained by the Chhattisgarh State Dental Council. 2. Though, under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Act of 1948, an appeal is provided against the order cancelling registration, however, provisions of Section 41 (1) of the Act of 1948 provides that after giving opportunity of hearing, an inquiry is to be conducted by the Competent Authority before passing the order under Section 41. In case at hand, pleadings made by petitioner that order impugned is passed in violation of provisions under Section 41 of the Act of 1948 i.e. without issuing show cause notice and without conducting any further inquiry, and in reply no document is filed to refute the very ground raised by petitioner. As, it is stated that the order impugned is passed in violation of principles of natural 3 justice, therefore, I find it appropriate to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, writ petition is considered on merits. 3. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “1. This Hon'ble court may be please to issue writ/writ, order/order, direction/directions and quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 (Annex.P/1) passed by the Registrar Chhattisgarh State Dental Council and the Registration of the petitioner may kindly be restore in its original number, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the appellate order dated 07.08.2025 (Annex.P/2), passed by the State Appellate Authority as well as the order of suspension dated 18.03.2021 (Annex.P/3) passed by the Registrar Chhattisgarh Dental Council. 2. This Hon'ble Court may be please to call entire records of the proceedings conducted by the respondent authorities. 3. This Hon'ble court may be please to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay a compensation of rupees 2 lakhs to the petitioner for taking illegal action against him. 4. This Hon'ble Court may be please to issue any order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs as it may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents and be also, please to award cost of the petition to the petitioner..” 4 4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is a Dentist and registered with State Dental Council. He is running dental hospital in the name “Chhattisgarh Dental Hospital Raipur”. Hospital of petitioner was empanelled under the scheme known as “Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (for short ‘Yojana’). During course of providing treatment to patients under the Yojana, it was alleged that petitioner had affixed braces to as many as 1400 children of nearby areas, which was not necessarily required and got the amount under the Yojana. Petitioner was served with show-cause notice and thereafter a penalty of Rs.52,10,000/- is imposed upon him. Further, petitioner has been de-empanelled from the Yojana by passing an order of suspension of registration of petitioner for a period of one year from 18.3.2021 to 18.3.2022. He contended that aggrieved with decision taken against hospital of petitioner, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority on 30.12.2019, which remained pending for long time and could be decided only on 7.8.2025 whereby the appellate authority dismissed appeal. As soon as the authority concerned got the knowledge of dismissal of appeal, order, Annexure P-1, is passed on 30.9.2025 invoking provisions of Section 41 (2) read with Section 17A of the Dentists Act 1948 (for short ‘the Act of 1948’) and Dentists (Code of Ethics) Regulations, 5 2014. He contended that prior to passing order against petitioner under the aforementioned provisions, petitioner was not served with show-cause notice. He further contended that as the order impugned, Annexure P-1, is passed without issuing show-cause notice and without giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the impugned order is bad in law and not sustainable. He next contended that even for taking action under Section 41 of the Act of 1948, an inquiry is to be followed, which has not been done in this case and therefore also the order impugned is not sustainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State opposing the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, would submit that hospital of petitioner was empanelled under the Yojana to provide treatment to patients. After inquiry based on complaint against hospital of petitioner, it revealed that in the hospital of petitioner unnecessarily braces have been implanted to around 1400 children. After due inquiry, the order for recovery of amount to the tune of Rs.52,10,000/-, which was reimbursed and paid to hospital of petitioner under the Yojana, was passed. As per pleadings made and information gathered, appeal preferred by petitioner against the order of suspension of registration was dismissed. Registration of petitioner was suspended for a period of one year. However, on a specific query being put to 6 learned counsel for respondents State as to whether along with return copy of any show-cause notice affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to passing of impugned order is filed, he fairly submits that no such document is enclosed along with reply nor any such pleading is made in reply. He, however, submits that considering that order of suspension of registration and order for recovery of Rs.52,10,000/-, was passed, the order impugned is passed. 6. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused documents filed along with writ petition. 7. Before proceeding further, I find it appropriate to have a look at relevant provisions of the Act of 1948. Section 17A of the Act of 1948 talks of professional misconduct, which is extracted below for ready reference:- “17A.Professional conduct. (1) The Council may prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette or the code of ethics for dentists. (2) Regulations made by the Council under sub- section (1) may specify which violations thereof shall constitute infamous conduct in any professional respect, that is to say, professional misconduct and such provision shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force. 8. Section 41 of the Act of 1948 talks of removal from register and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference:- 7 “41.Removal from register. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the '[State] Council may order that the name of any person shall be removed from any register where it is satisfied, after giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after such further inquiry, if any, as it may think fit to make,- (i) that his name has been entered in the register by error or on account of misrepresentation or suppression of a material fact, or (ii) that he has been convicted of any offence or has been guilty of any infamous conduct in any professional respect [or has violated the standards of professional conduct and etiquette or the code of ethics prescribed under section 17A], which in the opinion of the '[State] Council renders him unfit to be kept in the register, [or] [(iii) that he having been permitted temporary registration under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 34 has, on such registration, been found to practise the profession of dentistry for personal gain. (2) An order under sub-section (1) may direct that any person whose name is ordered to be removed from a register shall be ineligible for registration in the [State] under this Act either permanently or for such period of years as may be specified. (3) An order under sub-section (1) shall not take effect until the expiry of three months from the date thereof. 8 (4) A person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days from the date thereof, appeal to the [State] Government, and the order of the '[State] Government upon such appeal shall be final. (5) A person whose name has been removed from the register under this section or under sub-section (2) of section 39 shall forthwith surrender his certificate of registration [and certificate of renewal, if any,] to the Registrar, and the name so removed shall be published in the Official Gazette. (6) A person whose name has been removed from the State register of dentists under this section on under sub-section (2) of section 39 shall not be entitled to have his name registered in the register o dentists in any other State register of dentists except with the approval of the State Council from whos register his name has been removed.” 9. One of the important grounds which is raised by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that no show-cause notice is issued to petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing has been granted before taking decision of removing petitioner’s name from the register of the Council. As per provision under Section 41 (1) of the Act of 1948, the Council may order for removal of name of any person from any register where it is satisfied, after giving that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. Petitioner along with writ petition has filed show-cause notice dated 7.3.2020, Annexure P-23, issued under the provision of 9 Section 41 (2) read with Section 17A of the Act of 1948 and the Regulations of 2014. Perusal of this show-cause notice would show that allegations made therein are with regard to providing wrong treatment to children under Dr. Khoobchand Baghel Swastha Sahayata Yojana. Petitioner submitted documents in this regard vide letters written to the Inquiry Committee and thereafter order dated 18.3.2021 (Annexure P-3) was passed by respondent No.5 suspending registration of petitioner for a period of 12 months i.e. from 18.3.2021 to 18.3.2022. This order of respondent No.5 is put to challenge in an appeal before Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed vide order dated 7.8.20205. 11. Sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Act of 1948 provides that an order under sub-section (1) may direct that any person whose name is ordered to be removed from a register shall be ineligible for registration in the State under this Act either permanently or for such period of years as may be specified. 12. Respondent No.5 invoking powers under Section 41 (2) of the Act of 1948, had removed name of petitioner from the register of the Council for a period of one year. After passing of order dated 18.3.2021, Annexure P-3, the proceedings initiated pursuant to notice, Annexure P-23, dated 7.3.2020 came to an end. 10 13. The order, Annexure P-1, is passed by respondent No.5 cancelling registration of petitioner under provisions of Section 41 (2) read with Section 17A of the Act of 1948 for irregularities committed by hospital run by petitioner under Ayush Bharat Jan Aroygya Yojana also mentioning that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the State Nodal Agency had inflicted penalty of Rs.52,10,000/- vide Annexure P-21 dated 27.12.2019. The order further mentions that if aforementioned penalty is not deposited then disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. Above order is passed based on the inquiry report submitted to the Director, Health Services Chhattisgarh on 1.5.2019 in which there is recommendation for disciplinary action against two clinics involved in irregularities; recovery of payments already made to certain clinics. Inquiry report dated 1.5.2019 (Annexure R- 2) dated 1.5.2019 was with regard to Ayushman Bharat Pradhanmantri Jan Arogya Yojana. 14. After passing of an order of recovery of amount so paid to petitioner hospital, no notice under Section 41 of the Act of 1948 is issued to petitioner separately for removal of name of petitioner from register maintained by respondent No.5. As discussed above, proceeding to notice earlier issued under Section 41 of the Act of 1948 for irregularities committed under Dr. Khoobchand Baghel Swastha Sahayata Yojana 11 came to an end after passing of an order under Section 41 (2) of the Act of 1948 for suspending/removing name of petitioner from register for specified time i.e. one year. 15. In view of above discussion, order, Annexure P-1, cancelling registration of petitioner from register of respondent No.5 is in violation of principles of natural justice because petitioner was not served with any show-cause notice nor granted any opportunity of being heard, proposing to take such an action and therefore, it is not sustainable in law. 16. In case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported in (2015) 8 SCC 519, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while stressing the importance of natural justice, has held as follows: 28. It is on the aforesaid jurisprudential premise that the fundamental principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, have developed. It is for this reason that the courts have consistently insisted that such procedural fairness has to be adhered to before a decision is made and infraction thereof has led to the quashing of decisions taken. In many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders, which affect the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. 12 But what is important to be noted is that the applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision. The principle has to be mandatorily applied irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any such statutory provision or not. 35. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary….” 17. In case of UMC Technologies Private Limited reported in (2021) (2) SCC 551, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus : “13. …...The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order travelling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent. This Court in Nasir Ahmad v. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, U.P., Lucknow and Another, (1980) 3 SCC 1, has held that it is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as 13 to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 18. In case at hand, no show-cause notice was issued in terms of Section 41 of the Act of 1948 before taking action of permanently cancelling registration of the petitioner. Section 41 provides for reasonable opportunity of being heard and further it provides that action under Section 41 (2) is to be taken after further inquiry. Not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and not conducting further inquiry has seriously prejudiced the right of petitioner. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Swamy Devi Dayal Hospital and Dental College vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 506 while considering provisions under proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 10A of the Act of 1948 observed thus:- “22.3. The expression “opportunity of being heard” occurring in this proviso would mean that the material that goes against the applicant and is to be taken into consideration is to be supplied to the applicant within an opportunity to make representation. For this purpose either the report of DCI itself can be supplied or at least the deficiencies pointed out in the report have to be communicated by the Central Government to the applicant with an opportunity to furnish its comments thereupon. At that stage while giving its 14 reply, if the applicant claims personal hearing, such a personal hearing should also be accorded. 23. As in the present case, since no such opportunity of being heard, the requirement of proviso to sub- section (4) of Section 10-A of the Act, was not afforded to the petitioner, the decision dated 30.3.2013 of the Central Government warrants to be set aside on this ground alone.” 19. For the foregoing discussions, the order impugned, Annexure P-1, is not sustainable in eyes of law and therefore, it is set aside. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if they so desire. 20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in above terms. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-