SMT. SANJU SHARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010197472021 2026:CGHC:39560
NAFR
Digitally signed by
YOGESH TIWARI
Date: 2026.09.10
17:29:21 +0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
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)

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..