e HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . WP (C) No. 32Ls of 2OO8 C.M. PATEL HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate VCTSUS GOW. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON',BLE THE CHIEF JUSTTCE HON',BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 24.O4-2009 This petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in WP(C) No.423311993. Interim order stands vacated. Pending applications are disposed of in terms of the judgment. A copy of the judgment be placed on the file. ^?9}a\ 'f' ' cHrEF JUSTTCE s. MURALTDHAR, J. APRTL 24,2OO9 ttv" q Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified \ \\ 'r I -t IN TIIE XIXGI{ COTIRT OF DELIII AT NEW DEI-,HX VIP (C) No. 4233 of X 993 Date of decision: April 24,2009 DELHI.MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..... PETITIONERS Through: iVIr. S.P. Kalra, Senior Advocate with i\zk.Praveen Chauhan and X[r. Anmol Sinha, Advocate versus LINION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.D. Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD lVIr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. LPA. No. 132 of 2008 SANTOM HOSPITAL .... APPELLANT Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: 1\&. S.D. Salwan Advocate for GNCTD. Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate WP (C) No. 5782 of 2007 SANTOM HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER . Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheklrar, Advocate VETSUS , GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon rvith Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Mr. S.D..Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD WP (C) No. 6788 of 2007 KISHM DEVI CIIARTIABLE CLINIC & ORS. ..... PETITIONERS Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate I!I versus WP(C) No.4233/93 etc. Page 7 of 35 v GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. SHANTI CLIMC versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: X[r. Vivek Kumar Tandon with VIr. Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate lYP (C) No. 6795 of 2007 ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. WP (C) No. 6789. of 2007 rhrough : Ms. Radhika chandr";t.tffiTl?Y"* RESPONDENTS APOTHECARIES LIMITED versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheklrar, Advocate ..... PETITIONER It- ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with lVIr. DaiyanHussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms Zubeda Begum, Advocate WP (C) No. 7290 of 2007 INDIAN HOSPITAI ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms: Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... NBSPONDENTS , Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Dalyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate bf Health Service's. lVP (C) No. 8258 of 2007 LIFE LINE MEDICAL CENTRE ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheklrar, Advocate versus WP(C) No.4233/93 etc. Page 2 of.35 \\z GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate WP (C) No. 8337 of 2007 DI'RGA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. .... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashektrar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan }Iussain,' Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Ms. Purbali Bora, proxy counsel for Ms. Aruna Tiku. Advocate \ryP (C) No. 8833 of 2007 DR. BALA DEVI'S HEALTITY FAMILY AND ANR .... PETITIONERS Through: Ms. Radhil<a Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI &'ORS. RESPONDENTS 'Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. ' Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for GNCTD. lYP (C) No. 8835 of 2007 ' ,R AT.trtrT,A T-Tos ..... PETITIONER .HANDRALEELA HosPhII* Radhika chandrash.khar, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Xdr. Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of . Health Services. Ms. Sonia Shanna, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 8908 of 2007 , J.M.S.S. HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate l. w7@ No. 42sg/sg etc. Poge 3 of 35 \q versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS ' Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. . Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Sonia Shanna, Advocate for GNCTD. ' WP (C) No. 9384 of 2007 Dr. S.P. tvfaffesffWanf .... PETITIONER Through: lVIr. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. I ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Viveik Kumar Tandon with iVIr. Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. , WP (C) No. 524 of2008 EAT<ESH EYE & GENERAL HOSPIAL ..... PETITiONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheldrar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.' ...... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. DuyanHussain, Advocate for Directorate of . Health Services. WP (C) No. 909 of 2008 WELCOME HEALTH CARE CENTRE AND HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER . Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheli*rar, Advocate versus t GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS . Though: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Adr' DaiyanHussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. lVP (C) No. 910 of 2008 . wP(c) No. 423g/gg etc. Page 4- of 35 \ \r ANAND MAYA HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER ' Through: Ms. Radhil<a Chandrashekftar, Advooate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with VIr. Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate cif Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. \\rP (C) No. 911 of 2008 AGRAWAL EYE INSTITUTE ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashelifiar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPO]{IDENTS Through: lzlr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with \4r. Dalyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate lYP (C) No. 912 of 2008 HANDA STO}TE CLINIC ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashelchar, Advocate { VCTSUS OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS ..... RESPONDENTS Page 5 of 35 GOVT. Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Oaiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorbte of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD WP (C) No. 915 of 2008 SHARMA MEDICAL CENTRE ....". PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. WP(.c) uo. szss/gs e.tc.. \b 'tl Through: IW. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr' Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of ' Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 10X8 of 2008 K.K. SURGICAL AND MATERMTY CENTRE ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate Govr' oF NCr oF DELHIfiffh vivekKumar i;ffHftENrs Mr. Dalyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Servibes. Ms.Shikha Palsule, proxy counsel for Mr' Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for R-2 WP (C) No. 3214 of 2008 ANAND ENT & SPEECH CENTRE ..... PETITIONER Through:Ms.RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate t. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kirmar Tandon with nzlr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Mr. Virendra' Singh, Advocate WP (C) No. 3215 of 2008 C.M. PATEL HOSPITAL .... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate ersus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with IvIr' Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate WP(c) No.4233/93 etc, Page 6 of 35 AND $ IVP (C) No. 3216 of 2008 GANDHI NURSINGHOME Through: Ms. Radhika ChandrashekJrar, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS . Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate a CORAJ\{: IION'BLE TIIE CHTF"F JUSTICE I{ON'BI,E DR. JUSTICE S. MI]RALMXIAR 1. 2. aJ. Whether Reporters of local papers may be 'l allowed to see the judgment? I Yzl To be referred to the Reporter or not? 1 ' Whether the judgment should be rcported ) in Digest? J{iDGMENT 24.04.2009 S. MI]RALIDI{AR., J. 1.1 These petitions and appeals raise similar questions and are accordingly being disposed of by this common judgment. The lead petition, Writ Petition (C) No. 4233 of 1993 by the Delhi Medical Association seeks a declaration that Rule 3 of the Delhi Nursing Home (Amendment) Rule s 1992 is ultra vires'the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act 1953 ('Act') and is also ubitraryand discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The. other prayerin the writ petition is for a. ' WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Page 7 of 35 \$ direction to the Respondents not to give effect to the said RuIe 3 and to register all nursing homes which are eligible for registration rurder the Act without insisting on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the irnpugned Rule 3. l.2It was submitted at the outset by counsel for the petitioners that with the changes brought about by the Master Pian for Delhi (i\,PD) 202L and the introduction of the mixed land use nofins, the questions arising in the present batch of petitions ought to be 1eft unanswered andthat.the petitioners' case be directed to'be considered by the Respondents under the new norms. This Court is not inclined to accept this plea since the principal questions concerning the Act are bound to recur notwithstandr$g the new MPD norrns. The petitioners have been protected from adverse consequences of the law on account of the interim orders which have operated for over a decade. It is therefore important and necessary for this Court to deal with the contentions raised on'merits The Fr,ovisions of the Act and the progressive changes to the Rules 2. The Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953 ('Act') was enacted to provide for the registration and inspection of nursing homes in the State of Delhi. Under Section z(iv) of the Act, a nursing home has been defined thus: Page 8 of 35 t \'a WP(c) No.4233/93 etc, \\ a "(iv) Nursing Home means any premises used pr intended to be used for the reception of perSons suffering from any siclcress injury or infinnity and the providing of treatment and nursing for them and includes a maternity home, and the expression 'carry on nursing'home' means , to receive persons in a nursing home for, any of the aforesaid purposes and to provide treabnent or nursing for them." 3. Section 3 prohibits the running of a nursing home without registration. The said provision reads as under: "3. Prohibition to carry on nursing home without registration - No. person shall carry on a nursing home . unless he has been duly registered in respect of such nursing home and the registration in respect has not been cancelled under section 7. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply in the case of a nursing home which is in existence at the date of the commencement of this Act, for a period of three months from such date or if an application for registration is made.within that period in accordance with the provisions of section 4 until such application is. , finallY disPosed of." \ 4. Under'sectio'n 7, the supervising authority may at any time. cancel the registration in respect of a nursing home on the :*. ground which would entitled the supervising authority to refuse an application for registration o1 It't WP(c) No. .4233/93 etc. Page 9 of 3.5 \ if any person is convicted under the Act or of an offence in respect of that nursing home. 5, The Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Rules Ig53 ('Rules') sdts out the procedure for.applying for the registration. The Rules were further arhended. in 1966. Therein a schedule was added with reference to Rule 14. The Schedule sets out the requirement of the nursing homes including the buildings , water supply, health, clothing, sanitary requirements of staff and other equipments. Importantly, as far as buildings qe concerned, clause (1) (b)G) stipulates that "The building used for the nursing horhe shall cqmply . with the relevant municipal bye laws in force from time to time". In the LggzamendmentRule 3(i) further amended to read as under: "(i) The building used for the Nursing Homes comply with the relevant Municipal bye-law as in forie and such guidelines as may be framed by the Ltd. Governor from time to time and the use of the premises shall conforrn to the Iand use prescribed under relevant law(s)." (emphasis supplied) 6. . Appended to the rules was the 'standard for a nursing home, maternitY home'. Thereunder it.is clearly stipulated that "building must comply with the municipal bye-laws". Page 70 of 35 I \{ WP(C) No.4233/93 etc. .r^ ) 7. A reading of the Rules amended from. time to time shows that the requirement of a nursing home having to conform to the municipal building bye-laws has been in existence for over forly yeaxs now. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act has been in force since 1957. For the New Delhi area, the New Delhi Municipal Committee's bye-laws have been in force 4urittg this period. Even earlier the Punjab Municipal Laws were applicable. These municipal bye-laws intended to regulate the uses of buildings in residential and non-residential areas for different purposes. The Schedule to the 7966 amendments to the Rules set out that detailed standards for a building that was to be used for running a nursing home. Position uncler the Master Planfor Delhi 1962 8. As far as the Delhi Developpent Act 7957 ('DD Act') is concerned it preserved the status quo for the pre-1957 buildings in terms of Section 14 . thereof. At no point in time after the enactment of the DDA Act, or the coming into effect of the MPD t962 was any exemption granted to nursing . homes from the applicability of either the DD Act or the MPD. As of 1966, therefore, there was no question of a building housi ng anursing home not having to comply with the requirements of the MPD. Even otherwise the requirement of having to satis$r the municipal building bye-laws was in vogue since 1963 itself. None of the nursing homes challenged the validity of the Rules that mandated this. They also did not question the applicability of the municipal bye-laws to nursing homes. WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. tIa Page 77 of 35 il .1 9. In effect therefore what happened in 7992 was only to add the requirement bf the nursing homes having to satisff the land use requirements if thef had to . be registered under th6 Act and Rules. The land use requirements were not new in the sense that the MPD akeadymandated such compliance. If a nwsing home did not comply with the MPD requirement as regards land use, it wouid invile penal action under the DD Act. All that the lgg1 amendment to the Rules did was to incoqporate this statutorily mandatory requirement as an additional condition for grant of registration to a nursing honae under the Act. It was therefore not a new requirement. It was in any event required to be complied with in terms of the DD Act. This cannot be viewed as being so dramatically different from the restrictions already in place as regards the use of buildings for non-residential purposes. The nursing homes which already conformed to building bye laws were unlikely to be unaware of the requirements under the MPD as regards land use. Main grounds of challenge in the 1993 writ petition 10. W.P (C) No.a233 of lgg3, filed on 3'd September 1993 by the Delhi Medical Association, refers to the above amendments to the Rules. .It ls stated that the respondents had not been adopting a consistent pattern in regard to registration of nursing homes under the'Act. There had been a number of occasions when regishation has been refused on a reason wholly I v' WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Page 12 of 35 f, e extraneous to the Act. It is stated that while in respect of one Amar Heart Medical Centre at Panchsheel Park, registuation was refused on the ground that DDA had.raised an objection to the use of the premises for a nursing home being in violation of the Master. Plan for Delhi (1MPD), similarly pticed institutions have been granted registrations. 11. It is submitted that on26h March 1982 the DDA had prepared draft regulations for establishment of nursing homes. A decision was taken on 5tr Decembel 1989 by a high powered committed which had reiommended grant of registration to the nursing homes operating in residential areas fo1 a number of years. This was followed by afurther draft amendment to the rules on 4th Novembb r t99L It is stated that in view of all these steps, the petitioners expected that the authorities would come out with a coherent and clear policy which would bdvance the objectives of the Act. Instead the impugned amendment to the Rules in 1992 came as. a surprise to the petitioners. The immediate effect of the amendment was that a substantial . majority of nursing homes stood disqualified from the beneficial provisions of the Act.since they did'not conform to the.land use nonns under the MPD and the ZonalDevelopment Plan (ZDP) published under the DDA Act 1957. The representations made by the petitioners were to no avaiI. A news item had appeared on 1" April 1993 reporting the stand taken by the Union of India in Parliament that nursing home established prior to 1" August L990 could continue tiII 1996 with payment of the requisite fee. wP(c) No. 4233/93 etc. ' Page 13 of 35 fl e\ L2. It is submitted that the insistence upon the compliance with the provisions of the MPD would defeat the object of the Act and the Rules. The impugned 1gg1amendmentto the Rules is also challenged as being violative of Arricles 14 and 19(1)(9) of the Constitution. In effect it is submitted that by insisting on compliance with the land use norns u, n", the MPD , {latge' number of nursing homes would be rendered unauthorised and be proceeded against for committing a punishable offence.under the DD Act. It would.also deprive nursing homes of the benefits consequential upon registration such as coverage by medical insurance since the insurance companies would cover only such hospitals and nursing homes as are registered with local authorities. It is pointed out that the ground rcality was that out of thousands of nursing homes operating in Delhi only 1 !7 wete registered and even these would face deregistration in terms of the impugned amendment to the Rules' 13. The impugned Rule is challenged as being ultrg vires Sections'5 and 16 of the Act cine the latLer do not speciff complianie with the MPD land use norms as one of the pre-requisites for registration' It is pointed out that since ' the Act is a complete code, a nonn not prescribed thereunder cannot be imposed particularly when such nonn has no nexus with the standard stinulated in section 5(d) of the Act. It is submitted that by not permitting .l I nursing homes in residential areas, citizens woulcl be deprived of timely WP(C) No.4233/93 etc' Page 74 oI 35 a ,{, access to medical facilities particularly in emergency sitr:ations' It is submitted that as long as the conditions under the Act are satisfied' the questionwhetheranursinghomeormaternityhome,wasviolatingtheMPD land use norms was ineleva.nt for the purpose of grarLt of registration' The impugnedprovisionisstatedtoinfringethefundamentalrightofthe members of the petitioner DMA under Arricle lg(lxg) of the constitution' . . Proceedings in the 1gg3 writ petitiqn by the DMA 14. Notice was directed to issue in the said writ petition by this court on 7tr September|gg3.Howeverevenafteray?ar,i...titt13mSeptemberlgg4, .noneoftheRespondents,hadfi1edtheqrep1ies.Aprayerwasmadeon beharf of the petitioners that.a comprehensive survey be conducted of the ri both in the conforming as well as non-conforming reloPment AuthoritY . areas' The Court found that Respondent No'4 Delhi Der (DDA)hadnotbeenappearingforthelastseveralhearings.Noticewas j issued to it to appearon the next date t'e' 26h October tgg4' Thereafter the Governrnent of the National caplta! Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'), RespondentNo.2,andtheDirectorateofHealthservicesoftheGNCTD, RespoldentNo.3frledacommoncountgraffidavit'TheDDAhoWeverdid not file any affrdavit by then. In the circumstances, this court directed on 26fr octo ber l994that Respondents z md3 "shall make survey of all the nursinghomesintheUni3n'.:noo."conformingareasandnon- WP(c) ruo. nsa/gtg etc' Page 75 of 35 conforming areas inespective of the amended Rule 3 which came into force on l't May !992." 15. The DDA filed its affidavit in the writ petition on 8tr Decembet,t994' The stand of the DDA was as follows: "VI That the Master Plan further provides that in Health Centres or a Nursing Home' there can be , apart from its Hedlth Centre and Nursing Home' only a watch and ward resident up to 20 sq'm and a chemist shop up to 15 sq'm' The premises which is earmarked in lay out plan for as a use of residential house' cannot be permitted to be used for a nursing home' hospital' or a health care centre' In respect of residential premises' master plan inter alia provides that the commercial activity shall be allowed only on the ground floor to the extent of 25% or'50 sq'rn whichever is less .subjecttotheprovisothatsuchestablishmentisto berunbytheresidentsofthedwellingunitand thereafter, also provides for ? restriction by excluding certain activities which axe not Permitted The Master Plan further provides that a professional activrty is pennitted in a residential . plot on any floor subject to the condition that the " resident of the premises shall be permitted to use a part of his residence to a maximum of 25% of 50 sq'm whichever is less for non-residential but no WP(C) No. 4233/93 etc' age 76 of 35 t nuisance activity which is rendered for renderin$ the services raised for professional skills' VII. That with the above background in respect of . the Master Plan, I say that the Delhi Building Bye- Laws Ig53 have been enacted for regulating the activities under the . jurisdiction of Delhi Development Authority as well as Municipal iorporation of Delhi. The said Bye-laws are applicable to the Building Regulation activity in the Union Tenitory of Delhi and the same apply to the design and construction of the building in case of building is erected'" 16. The GNCTD filed a further affidavit on 20tr January rgg5 in compliance with this court,s direction issued on26ft.October I994.In the said affidavit itwasinteraliastatedthatinresponsetotheadvertisementissuedasking nursing homes to submit particulars in the. prescribed proforma ' 433 applications had begn received from unregistered nursing homes' It was stated that "majority of the nursing homes surveyed fuIfil the requisite medical standards as prescribed under the'Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act lg53 and Rules framed thereunder except amended Rule 3 ' Exact number will be informed at the time of hearing'" 17. This court was informed at the hearin g on23'd January t995 by learned counsel for the GNCTD that out of 433 nursing horires which had responded Page 77 -of 35 WP(c) No.4233/93 etc' to the advertisement issued by it only 243 were found to have fulfitled the requisite rnedical standards as prescribed under the Act. 18. The petitioner, Delhi Medical Association, filed an additional affidavit on 3'd May Lggs. Thereafter by an order dated 24ft May 1995 while issuing Rule, this Court took on record the statement made in the affidavit of the Director, Health Services and passed a detailed interim order, the operative portions of which read as under: ,,In view of the statements made in the affidavit filed by the Director, Health Services that majority of Nursing Homes surveyed fulfil the requisite medical standards as prescribed under Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953 and Rules framed thereunder except satisffing the requirements under the amended Rule 3 we consider it appropriate and just to issue such an interim direction pending disposal of the Rule to the respondents not to take any action under the provisions of Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act,'1953 for non compliance with the provisions of Rule 3 of De1hi Nwsing Ho*., Registration (Amendment) Rules 1992, provided they fulfil all the requisite medical standards as prescribed under Delhi Nursing Homes RegiStration Act, 1954 and Rules framed thereunder except amended