1 CGHC010197472021 2026:CGHC:39560 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3212 of 2021 Smt. Sanju Sharma W/o. Bhagat Sharma Aged About 47 Years R/o. Ward No. 15, Officers Colony, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Public Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Union of India Through- Its Secretary, Ministry of Health And Public Welfare, New Delhi. 3 - National Medical Commission Through Its Chairman, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-I, New Delhi. 4 - Chhattisgarh State Medical Council Through Its Registrar, First Floor, Dr. Balmukund Sharma Clinic, Kankalipara, Near Nagar Nigam Ayurvedic Hospital, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Chhattisgarh Ayurvedic Ththa Unani Tatha Prakritic Chikitsa Board Through Its Registrar, Old Nurses Hostel, D K Hospital, Behind Lal Ganga Complex, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital Through Its Director Shivnand Sahu Ward No. 14, Baradwar Road, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Dr. Roop Narayan Sahu Director, Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital, Ward No. 14. Baradwar Road, Sakti, Distt, Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh). ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.10 17:29:21 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, G.A. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Rajeev Sinha, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 09.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the inaction and conduct of the respondent authorities in failing to take appropriate action against the alleged practice of quackery by respondent No.6, despite the allegations being supported by documentary material and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. The petitioner, accordingly, seeks a direction to the competent authorities to inquire into the functioning of respondent No.6 and, if the allegations are found to be correct, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “(A) That the respondent authorities be directed to conduct an inquiry with regard to the functioning of respondent no. 6 hospital and to take appropriate action against concerned if found guilty. 3 (B) That any other relief which this court thinks fit in the interest of justice & equity.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 is allegedly providing medical treatment through persons who are not duly qualified or competent to practice the concerned system of medicine and is prescribing and administering medicines beyond their permissible scope of practice. It is contended that such unauthorised practice of medicine poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Learned counsel further submits that despite repeated representations and the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, the respondent authorities have failed to conduct any effective inquiry or take action in accordance with the statutory provisions and the directions issued by this Court in earlier proceedings concerning the menace of quackery. It is, therefore, submitted that the competent authorities may be directed to examine the allegations and take appropriate action against respondent No.6 in accordance with law. 3. When the matter was taken up on 20.04.2026, this Court, taking note of the allegations raised by the petitioner regarding the functioning of respondent No.6-Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital, directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Sakti, to verify the facts and file an affidavit specifically addressing the allegations levelled against the Hospital, and further directed her to comply with the earlier orders passed by this Court. 4 4. On 01.09.2026, the Court, upon considering the report submitted by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sakti, and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report did not specifically disclose the doctors running respondent No.6-Hospital, observed that the report was not specific despite the serious nature of the allegations. Accordingly, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, was directed to appear virtually before this Court on the next date of hearing and to address the allegations raised by the petitioner. 5. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, Dr. Pooja Agrawal, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sakti, and Dr. Anita Shrivastava, Chief Medical and Health Officer, Janjgir Champa appeared through video conferencing. 6. In compliance with the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by this Court, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sakti has filed an affidavit, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “2. That, the writ petition was listed before the Hon'ble Court for hearing on 20/04/2026 and during the course of hearing, it was submitted by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Court that the respondent no. 6 Sparsh Multispecialty Hospital is being run in violation of the norms prescribed by the National Medical Commission and further the said hospital is being run without qualified doctors, thereby 5 endangering the lives of the patients. Upon such submissions, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 20/04/2026 was pleased to direct the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Sakti to verify the facts and file an affidavit addressing the allegations levelled against the said hospital. 3. That, in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, the deponent respectfully submits that the State of Chhattisgarh has enacted an Act in the name and style of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagrih Tatha Rogopachar Sambandhi Sthapanai Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2010). The said Act has been enacted to provide for licensing of nursing homes and clinics establishment and the matters connected therewith to ensure standardization and thereby achieving improvement of health care services. Section 3 provides license for set-up of nursing home or a clinical establishment as defined in this Act, 2010. Section 22 provides for renewal of registration and according to which the application for renewal of registration shall be made thirty days before the expiry of the validity of the certificate of provisional registration and, in case the application for renewal is made after the expiry of the provisional registration, the authority shall allow renewal of registration on payment of such enhanced fees, as may be prescribed. 6 4. It is submitted that in exercising of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagrih Tatha Rogopachar Sambandhi Sthapanai Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010, the State Government has framed a rule in the name and style of Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2013). Rule 10 of the Rules, 2013 deals with the prescribed standards for clinical establishment. The requirements and standards for clinical establishment are provided in the Hospital and Nursing Homes asks for the basis minimum facilities provided by a nursing Home / Hospital. Copy of segment E. Hospital and Nursing Homes is collectively being filed herewith as Annexure A/1. According to this segment, the services of one Medical Practitioner on duty shall be available 24 hrs for attending to emergency call of the indoor patients. 24 hrs duty of Medical Practitioner shall not be compulsory if Day care Centres are available, but availability of Doctor is compulsory till a patient is there in the Hospital. Incentive Care Unit (ICU) shall be well supported by medical and paramedical staff in order to provide resuscitation and short term cardio respiratory support including defibrillation. Further every hospital / nursing home must have at least one resident medical officer /general duty medical officer for every 7 20 beds and one of the most standard is that the disposal of wastes in the hospital shall be in accordance with the Bio Medical Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1998. Provisions shall be made for segregation and safe disposal of biomedical wastes, sharps and syringes either by their own resources or through tie-up with common Bio-medical Waste Treatment facilities. 5. It is submitted that the respondent no. 6 hospital was earlier within District Janjgir Champa (CG.) and after formation of the District Sakti, the area where the respondent no. 6 hospital is situated came to the area and limits of District Sakti (CG.). It is submitted that online application for registration was moved by the owner / proprietor of the respondent no. 6 Hospital namely - Shyam Charan Sahu on 20/12/2019 alongwith the details of the doctors appointed for running the said clinical establishment. This fact is evident from perusal of the documents filed at page no. 37 to 41 as part and parcel of Annexure P/5. A bare perusal of the document filed at page no. 41 would reveal 3 full time consultants / doctors having the qualification of MD, DA, MD, Pathology, 3 visiting consultants / doctors having the qualification of MS MCH, MS and MD and 2 Duty doctors having the qualification of BAMS which were appointed for running the respondent no. 6/hospital. It is submitted that upon such application, a temporary registration bearing 8 ID TJANJ26214 was issued in favour of the respondent no.6 Hospital. Copies of the agreements executed between the appointed doctors and the respondent no. 6/ hospital are filed herewith as Annexure A/2. From these agreements, it would be evident that before granting the license, the respondent no. 6/ hospital had required qualified doctors for running the said clinical establishment. 6. It is respectfully submitted that after due verification, upon fulfilling the required and prescribed minimum standards, the license was granted by the competent authority on 16/12/2020 showing proprietor's name as Shyama Charan Sahu and to demonstrate this fact, copy of the license no. JANJ0089/HOS is being filed herewith as Annexure A/3. This is evident that the license was granted as Dr. S.S. Babarwal was the persons in-charge of the hospital. It is submitted that the said license granted to the respondent no. 6 Hospital was valid for a period of 5 years commencing from 16/12/2020 to 15/12/2025. 7. It is respectfully submitted that considering the date of expiry of the license to be 15/12/2025, online application for renewal was moved by the respondent no.6 hospital through its owner / proprietor namely Pradeep Kumar Rathore on 09/01/2026 and to demonstrate this fact, copy of the online application for renewal dated 09/01/2026 is being filed herewith as Annexure A/4. This 9 application would show that Dr. Yameen Abdulla being person incharge of the Hospital. 8. It is respectfully submitted that acting upon the aforesaid application of the respondent no. 6 hospital, the three member inspection team consisting of Nodal Officer, Nursing Home Act, District Health Officer and District Project Coordinator, PMJY constituted under the Act, 2010 was directed to verify and ascertain as to whether the respondent no. 6 Hospital fulfills the required and prescribed minimum standards for running a clinical establishment or not with required number of qualified Medical Practitioners or not. 9. It is respectfully submitted that the said Inspection Team have visited the respondent no. 6 hospital /Clinical establishment on 06/04/2026 and inspected the hospital minutely. It is submitted that during the course of inspection, the details of facilities made available for the patient have also been enquired, the numbers of Medical Practitioners who are providing their services in the hospital/Clinical establishment have also been enquired. It is submitted that after inspection, based upon the details / information provided by the In-charge of the respondent no. 6 hospital/Clinical establishment, the said Inspection Team has prepared the inspection report and copy of which is being filed herewith as Annexure A/5. It is submitted that during the inspection, the 10 inspection team was also made available the details of doctors who are interested to provide their services in the hospital alongwith their qualifications and the agreements executed with them. It is submitted that the inspection team has found the facilities made available in the hospital for patients and availability of Medical Practitioners as per the standards and norms as provided in the Rules, 2013. 10. It is submitted that the details of the doctors tendering their services in the respondent no. 6 hospital are as follows: - a. Dr. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal, MD b. Dr. Siddharth Kumar, MS (Orthopadedics) c. Dr. Yameen Abdulla, MBBS, d. Dr. Mehnaz Hussain, MBBS, e. Dr. Rupnarayan Sahu, BAMS To demonstrate this fact, copy of the agreements alongwith the registration certificates is being filed herewith as Annexure A/6. It is submitted that the said application for renewal is still pending consideration before the competent authority. 11. It is respectfully submitted that the allegations of the petitioner that the respondent no. 6 Sparsh Multispecialty Hospital is being run in violation of the norms prescribed by the National Medical 11 Commission and further the said hospital is being run without qualified doctors is found baseless and afterthought.” 7. From perusal of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sakti, pursuant to the order dated 20.04.2026, it transpires that, pursuant to the application for renewal of registration submitted by respondent No.6, a three-member inspection team was constituted by the competent authority to verify whether the Hospital was fulfilling the prescribed minimum standards and whether the requisite number of qualified medical practitioners were available. The inspection team visited respondent No.6-Hospital on 06.04.2026 and, upon inspection of the facilities and verification of the details of the medical practitioners engaged by the Hospital, found the facilities and availability of medical practitioners to be in accordance with the standards prescribed under the Rules, 2013. The affidavit further discloses that the Hospital is presently providing the services of, inter alia, doctors possessing qualifications such as MD, MS and MBBS, besides a BAMS-qualified doctor, and that the application for renewal of registration is presently pending before the competent authority. 8. Thus, in view of the verification subsequently undertaken by the competent authorities, the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding the present functioning of respondent No.6-Hospital, particularly with regard to the alleged absence of qualified doctors 12 and non-compliance with the prescribed norms, does not survive for further consideration in the present proceedings. However, since the affidavit itself discloses that certain proceedings concerning Dr. Roopnarayan Sahu are pending, the competent authority shall bring the said proceedings to their logical conclusion, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. At the same time, considering the nature of the allegations raised in the petition, it is observed that the competent authorities shall not treat the present disposal of the petition as a matter of permanent exemption from compliance with the statutory requirements. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sakti, shall ensure that respondent No.6-Hospital continues to maintain the requisite standards, infrastructure and availability of duly qualified medical practitioners as prescribed under the applicable statutory provisions and rules. The Hospital shall also remain subject to periodic inspection by the competent authorities, and in the event any deficiency, irregularity or violation is noticed at any stage, the Hospital shall be required to rectify the same within the time prescribed by the competent authority and, in case of failure to do so or where the violation is of a serious nature, appropriate action shall be taken against the Hospital and the persons responsible, strictly in accordance with law. 13 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the grievance raised by the petitioner stands substantially addressed. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- /- /- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh..