Municipal Commissioners Lack Jurisdiction to Seal Nursing Homes Without Statutory Authority

The petitioner operated “Agrawal Nursing Home” in Durg under a licence granted under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (“Adhiniyam, 2010”).

On 15 December 2022, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg issued a notice and sealed the nursing home, alleging irregularities, non-compliance with the Adhiniyam and applicable rules, and improper management and disposal of bio-medical waste.

The Municipal Corporation asserted that complaints had been received from sanitation workers and that permission had been obtained from the District Collector, who was stated to be the President of the District Committee under the applicable legislation.

The petitioner challenged the notice and sealing action as being without jurisdiction, contending that only the statutory Supervisory Authority could suspend or cancel the nursing-home licence and that the Municipal Commissioner had no power to seal the premises.

During the proceedings, the petitioner submitted a reply and documents pursuant to the Court’s order dated 19 December 2022; the Corporation alleged that several documents had expired and that mandatory permissions had not been produced.

The Court had earlier stayed the operation of the impugned notice after recording that the District Collector was the competent authority.

1. Whether the Municipal Commissioner had statutory authority under the Adhiniyam, 2010 or the Rules, 2013 to issue the impugned notice and seal the petitioner’s nursing home?

2. Whether the sealing action was invalid because the statutory procedure for suspension or cancellation of the nursing-home licence under Section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 had not been followed by the competent authority?

3. Whether the impugned notice and consequential sealing action were liable to be quashed notwithstanding the allegations concerning bio-medical waste and other regulatory non-compliance?

The Court applied Section 6 of the Adhiniyam, 2010, which governs the grant or refusal of nursing-home licences on grounds including fitness, statutory compliance, staffing, construction, accommodation and equipment.

Section 9 exclusively empowers the Supervisory Authority to suspend or cancel a licence for statutory or licensing violations, subject to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, a 30-day notice specifying the grounds, and a reasoned speaking order.

Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 designates the District Collector as the Supervisory Authority, assisted by the District Committee.

The Court relied on E.S. Beena v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(C) No. 2248 of 2021, which held that the Municipal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to seal premises or issue regulatory orders under the relevant statutory framework.

It also applied the principle affirmed in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, (2024) 5 SCC 481, that an action or order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and non est in law.

The Court found that the statutory scheme vested regulatory and supervisory control over nursing homes and clinical establishments in the District Collector as the Supervisory Authority, not in the Municipal Corporation or its Commissioner.

Although allegations concerning bio-medical waste and expired permissions could potentially justify proceedings, any suspension or cancellation of the licence had to be initiated and decided by the competent Supervisory Authority after compliance with the mandatory notice, hearing and speaking-order requirements under Section 9.

The Municipal Commissioner therefore acted beyond the authority conferred by the Adhiniyam, 2010 and the Rules, 2013.

The Corporation’s alleged permission from the District Collector did not cure the absence of statutory competence in the Commissioner to issue the impugned notice or seal the nursing home.

Since the competent authority had neither suspended nor cancelled the petitioner’s licence, the Municipal Corporation’s sealing action was jurisdictionally invalid.

The Court nevertheless clarified that the competent authority remained free to initiate lawful proceedings for any regulatory or bio-medical-waste violations.

The notice and consequential sealing action were declared illegal, without authority of law, and unsustainable.

Accordingly, the impugned notice was quashed, while liberty was reserved to the competent Supervisory Authority—the District Collector—to take appropriate action in accordance with the Adhiniyam, 2010, the applicable rules, and principles of natural justice if any violation was established.

The writ petition was finally disposed of.