IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) wRI'r PETITION no] 2b” OF 2002 PETITIONERS 1. Dr.Ashok Kumar Gupta aged about 4S years s/o. late Sri K.N.Gupta R/o. 20/13, Saraswati Nagar Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.). Dr.Arunanshu Parial aged about 35 years s/o. shri B.B.Paria1 R/o.Q-6, “nu am Hagar.» ‘ Raipur (C.G. . 5g“; Dr.Prakash Narayan shukla aged about 55 years s/a.1ate snri B.P.Sh&k1a R/o .Manopchar , G . E.Road I/o.Rajkumar College Gate Raipur (C.G.). State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Public Health and Medical Eaucation, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Director '\ Medical Education Government of Chhattisgarh 01d Nursirig Hospital DKS Bhawan. Raipur (C.G.). Medical Council of India Aiwan-e-Ghaljm Marg Kama Regai" irew Delhi-410062. yaw f” PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 6F INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARI ETC. AND FOR O'I‘EER WRI’I‘S AND DIRECTIONS. The following is respectfully submitteé on behalf of the petitioners :— PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS: . ; m . J ‘ A's"s‘hown‘in the canoe title. (2) gA HE ENDENT Kmi n the cause ttle. / r ., Ygr/,pARTICULRs or ‘T Rspos ashr: i i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1241 OF 2002 PETITIONERS Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS And W.P. Nos.1348 & 1794 of 2002 (Writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. .1 3% Present :- Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. GovernmentAdvocate forthe_State. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, standing counsel for the Union of India. Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate for the Medical Council of lndia. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 5m day of August, 2010) W.P.Nos.1241, 1348 & 1794 of 2002 involve the common question of law & facts and, as such, they are being disposed of by this common order. Challenge in these batch of petitions is to the letter dated 13/03/2002 (Annexure P/1) whereby, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners, who are not , admitting any in-patient or not maintaining a hospital or nursing home, have been directed to obtain license under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (for short “the Act, 1987"). Case of the petitioners, in short, is that the petitioners are Psychiatrists and according to the petitioners, they are having clinics and are not running psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes and, as such, they are not required to obtain license. Even the impugned letter dated 13/03/2002 is also clear 'on this aspect that psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing x47 r homes are required to obtain license from the competent officer. Despite the clear language of the letter, the authorities are raiding all the clinics including those clinics where in—patients are not V admitted and are not running psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes, directing them either to close or obtain license from the competent officer. Thus, these petitions. Shri Pali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home is defined ' under Section 2 (q) of the Act, 1987. Shri Pali further submitsythat except Dr. Prakash Narayan Shukla (Petitioner No.3 in.W.P. No. 1241 of 2002), who is running psychiatric nursing home, all other petitioners are not having either the psychiatric hospitals . or psychiatric nursing homes, as defined under the provisions of the Act, 1987. Thus, the petitioners are not required to obtain any license under the provisions of the Act, ‘1987. The requirement of the license is also contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1987 in case of psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes. Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, submits that the psychiatrist, who has clinic or does not run psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home, is also required to obtain license from the competent officer. Shri Bhatia, placed reliance upon the direction of the Supreme Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 334 of 2001 (ln Re: Death of 25 Chained lnmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu v. Union of India & others). Shri Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India and Shri Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, fairly submit that all the psychiatrists are not required to obtain license under the provisions of Sections 6 & 7 of the Act, ' a 1987 unless they establish or maintain a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home. The basis of running of psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes is for treatment of mentally iv in-patient not an out patient; Shri Pradhan, relying upon the averments made in para 9 of the. return, further submits that the State Mental Health Rules, 2002 of Chhattisgarh has not been received by the Central Government (as required under Section 94(2) of MHA, 87) for their approval. i have considered the submissions made by the learned c§unsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the pleadingshand the documents appended thereto. 8. 4 Para 2(iii) of the order dated 12/04/2002 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re: Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in Tamil Nadu reads as under: “2 (iii) How many unregistered bodies, by whatsoever name called, purporting to offer psychiatric/mental health care exist in the State on date of this order and whether any of them comply with minimum standards and are entitled to grant of license and if not, whether steps have been taken to close down the same”. 9. The reliance of Shri Bhatia is misplaced. Either it is not understood 'by the officers properly or they are misdirected. There is no requirement in this para to ask for license from all the psychiatrists, contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1987. The Supreme Court was considering the matter wherein there were in-patients in the ‘ hospital and no care was taken, which led into the death of 25 inmates. In the case on hand, the clinics do not admit any in-patients for treatment or for convalescent. It is only for advise given to out-patients. 10. Section 6' of the Act, 1987 provides for establishment or 3 K maintenance of psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes t; W ' only with licence. Section 7 provides for applcation for licence and i Section 8 provides for grant or refusal of licence. ln all the cases, only psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes are required to obtain a licence, as the same cannot be established or maintained without proper licencegranted under the provisions of Section 6 & 7 ofthe Act, 1987. Section 2(q) of the Act, 1987 defines the psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes, which reads as under : “2(q) ‘psychiatric hospital’ or ‘psychiatric nursing home’ means a hospital or, as the case may be, a nursing home established or maintained by the Government or any other person for the treatment and care of mentally ill persons and includes a convalescent home established or maintained by the Government or any other person for such mentally ill persons; but does not include any general hospital or general nursing home established or maintained by the Government and which provides also for psychiatric services". According to the response filed by the Union of Indian as well as Medical Council of India, it is also clear that the license is required only by psychiatric hospitals or psychiatric nursing homes, as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act, 1987. Thus, it is made clear that all clinics, which are not admitting in-patients for treatment or ' for convalescent, would not be required to obtain license under the provisions of the Act, 1987. Thus, the Government cannot force any psychiatrists, who are not having the above conditions, to obtain license from the competent officer, which is illegal and unauthorized. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. ‘,\ t Sd/- .E ,\ Satish K. Agnihotri l l ' - ‘, Judge ,9 .l .