Karnataka HC Says 200-Metre Hospital Ban Cannot Bar Renewal For Diagnostic Centres Established Before 2019

The petitioner’s diagnostic centre was registered under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 in 2010. Its registration and licence were renewed from time to time and remained valid until 4 August 2021.

The centre later ceased operating during the COVID-19 outbreak. When the petitioner sought renewal, the District Health Officer issued a closure notice on the ground that the centre was within 200 metres of the District Hospital.

The petitioner challenged the closure notice and subsequent communications, and sought consideration of its renewal application.

The petitioner contended that the 200-metre restriction introduced by the 2018 amendment applied only to establishments created after the amendment took effect on 4 April 2019.

The Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007, as amended by Act No. 1 of 2018, prohibits the establishment of a new private clinical laboratory within 200 metres of specified government hospitals and other covered institutions under the proviso to Section 6; the amendment took effect on 4 April 2019.

The Court applied the general principle that statutory amendments operate prospectively unless a contrary legislative intention is expressed.

It also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in W.P. No. 106793 of 2024, which held that the restriction applied to clinical laboratories and diagnostic centres established after the amended provision commenced, and did not bar renewal for establishments created earlier.

The petitioner’s centre was established in 2010, before the 200-metre restriction took effect. The Court found no basis to apply the amended restriction retrospectively to that existing establishment.

Consistent with the coordinate Bench’s decision and the presumption of prospective operation, the respondents could not rely on the restriction to direct closure or to reject the renewal application solely because of the centre’s proximity to the District Hospital.

The petitioner remained subject to the Act’s other licensing requirements.

It permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh online application for renewal or grant of a licence for the same premises, without reference to the proviso to Section 6. The second respondent was directed to consider the application in accordance with the law applicable before the amendment and pass orders within four months of its submission; the petitioner must satisfy all other requirements under the Act.