1 2026:CGHC:16576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1653 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Kumar S/o. Shri Muneshwar Aged About 42 Years R/o. New Khursipar, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Health And Family Welfare, Naya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Collector And Supervisory Authority Under Chhattisgarh State Nursing Home Act, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Medical Officer Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Bhilai Nagar Palik Nigam, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No. 4:- Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 10.04.2026 1. The instant writ petition is being preferred against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby License No. DURG0012/NH has been cancelled with immediate effect, and it has further been directed that the functioning of the hospital be stopped and the patients admitted therein be referred to the Government Hospital as per their convenience, and the petitioner has also been directed to surrender the original license issued under the Nursing Home Act within a period of 7 days before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg (Respondent No. 3). 2. Following reliefs have been prayed by way of this petition:- “10.1 In view of the above facts and grounds this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the order dated 18/03/2026 issued by the District Collector and Supervisory Authority, Under Chhattisgarh State Nursing Home Act, District Durg, CG. (ANNEXURE P/1) 10.2 That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favor of the petitioner safeguarding his interest.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the proprietor of IMI Hospital, a 49-bedded multispeciality hospital running since 2010 without any hindrance and having adequate staff and facilities as per the applicable rules. The hospital was 3 granted license by Respondent No. 4 for the period from 21.05.2024 to 21.05.2025, and prior to its expiry the Petitioner attempted to submit an application for renewal, however the same was not accepted by Respondent No. 4 for reasons not attributable to the Petitioner. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice dated 15.12.2025 alleging non-renewal of license and granted 30 days to reply, to which the Petitioner duly responded on 15.01.2026 stating that renewal application had already been submitted and also brought to notice that in WPC No. 5532/2025 this Hon’ble Court had granted status quo vide order dated 17.11.2025. Despite the subsistence of the said order, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 cancelling the license on the ground of alleged deficiencies without furnishing any inspection report or details of inspection. The Petitioner thereafter submitted representations dated 21.03.2026 and 27.03.2026 before Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, highlighting violation of principles of natural justice and the grave risk to admitted patients due to forced transfer, and also preferred a statutory appeal before the Director, Directorate of Health Services on 21.03.2026 which is still pending. The Petitioner further sought relevant documents under the RTI Act on 23.03.2026, which have not been supplied till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the that the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by 4 Respondent No. 2 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that the very basis of the impugned order, namely non-availability of license, is wholly unsustainable inasmuch as the issue regarding license is already sub judice before this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 5532/2025, wherein a status quo order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure P/6) has been passed, and therefore, the Respondents could not have proceeded to cancel the license in violation of the said order. It is also submitted that the Petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal under Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Act No. 23 of 2010, and during pendency of the said appeal, the direction to surrender the license within seven days and to shift patients is wholly arbitrary, unjust and without authority of law. It is further submitted that no proper inspection was conducted as neither any panchnama was prepared nor names of inspection team members or time of inspection were disclosed, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that no adequate and effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order, and the same has been passed in a sudden and arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the impugned action gravely affects the livelihood of the Petitioner and staff, and more importantly endangers the lives of admitted patients, including critical patients, who cannot be forcibly shifted. It is further submitted that even as per the applicable statute, at best a monetary penalty could have 5 been imposed for alleged non-renewal of license, however, the extreme action of cancellation and closure of hospital is disproportionate, harsh and unsustainable in law. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court, as the same has been passed in accordance with law and within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. Hence, the petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Since the impugned order has already been challenged before the Secretary, Health Department, by way of a statutory appeal, which has been annexed with the present petition as Annexure P/7, the petitioner is relegated to pursue the said remedy before the competent authority. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Secretary within a period of six (06) days from today. Upon such appearance, the Secretary shall consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of interim relief, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is running a hospital where patients are presently undergoing treatment. The concerned 6 Secretary is further directed to decide the application for interim relief within a period of ten (10) days thereafter, in accordance with law. 9. It is observed that the issue pertains to the functioning of a hospital being operated under a licence granted under the relevant Act, and any adverse effect may impact patient care. Therefore, the application for interim relief shall be considered expeditiously. 10. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned Secretary shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha