\ '=l ! I HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP (C) No. 3214 of 2OO8 ANAND ENT & SPEECH CENTRE ..... 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 CHTEF JUSTTCE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALTDHAR ORDER 24.04-2009 This petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in wP(c) No.4233l199.3. Interim order stands vacated. pending applications are disposed of in terms of the judgment. A copy of the judgment be placed on the file. . Pt)4\ .Ft / cHrEF JUSTTCE s. MURALTDHAR, J. APRTL 24,2OOg "v)' f\ 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 :\ ."i\\\\\ IN TI{E X{IGI{ COIIRT OF' DEX-HX AT NEW DEI,IXI !\rP (C) No.4233 of X993 ' Date of decision: April 24,ZO0g a'. DELHI.MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..... PETITIONERS Through: Adr. S.P. Kaka, Senior Adyocate with Mr.Praveen Chauhan and Mr. Anmol Sinha. Advocate versus LINION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENTS Through: Vti. S.O. Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. : , r, LPA. No. 132 of 2008 \r SANTOM HOSpITAL ..... AppELLAI'TT Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate . versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... NBSPONDENTS Through: lVIr. S.D. Salwan Advocate for GNCTD. IW. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate /" WP (C) No. 5782 of 2007 \a SANTOM HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER versus Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheklrar, Advocate GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI & ORS. . RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, t\[r. S.D..Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD WP (C) No. 6788 of 2007 KISHM DEVI CTIARTIABLE CLIMC & ORS . PETITIONERS Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate VEISUS WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. I Page 7 of 35 i \1/ o GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. SFIANTI CLINIC VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Xdr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. DaiyanHussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate ; !\rP (c) No. 6795 ot ztool APOTI{ECARIES LIMITED ..... PETITIONER versus Through: Ms. Radhilca Chandrasheklrar, Advocate 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 lYP (C) No. 7290 of 2007 INDIAN HOSPITAL Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. lYP (C) No. 6789. of 2007 rhrough : Ms. Radhika chandr";t"tffJTl?Y"* ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms: Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS 'Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate bf Health Service's. (C) No. 82s8 of 2007 LIFE LINE MEDICAL CENTRE O ""' PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Pdge 2 of.35 v: J: 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 DURGA HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. , , ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with VIr. Duryan Hussain,'Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Ms. Purbali Bora, proxy counsel for Ms. Aruna Tiku, Advocate lYP (C) No. 8833 of 2007. DR. BALA DEVI'S IIEALTFIY FAMILY AND ANR .... PETITIONERS ' Through: Ms. Radhika 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. ' WP (C) No. 8835 of 2007 CHANDRALEELA HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate VETSUS Govr' oF NCr oF DELHI*tTfu. vivekKumar r;fft;?ff*tt Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 8908 of 2007 PETITIONER ' J M q s' HOSPITAL ough: Ms. Radhika chandrashekhar, Advocate " WP(c) No. 42g3/gg etc. Page 3 of 35 . versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ' Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Sonia Shar:na, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 9384 of 2007 Dr. S.P. MAHESIIWARI Through: Mr. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 1 ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Viveik Kumar Tandon with hdr. Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. WP (C) No. 524 of 2008 AAKASH EYE & GENERAL HOSPIAL ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate IV\ \\\ RESPONDENTS versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. lVP (C) No. 909 of 2008 WELCOME HEALTH CARE CENTRE AND HOSPITAL versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. lYP (C) No. 9L0 of 2008 Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon \ivith Mr. DaiywtHussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. ..... PETITIONER ..... RESPONDENTS Pdge 4 of 35 ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate :. RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Vk. DaiyiHussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP(c) No.4233/es etc. (p i v ANAND MAYA HOSPITAL ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate VETSUS GOVT. OF NCT OF DJLHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with I\&. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD' \YP (C) No. 911 of 2008 AGRAWAL EYE INSTITUTE .n _ Jl :1_- rlL^_s-^ 1 i , .." PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus Govr oFNCr oF DEl#ffffu' vivekKumart;fft*fl*ENrs m. Dalyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani; Advocate for GNCTD' lYP (C) No. 912 of 2008 I{ANDA STONE CLIMC ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate t GOVT. versus OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Vr. O-iyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GI'{CTD' IVP (C) I.[o.915 of 2008 SHARMA MEDICAL CENTRE ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheklrar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. ..... RESPONDENTS ' Pdge 5 of35 I \b \ Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with VIr. Daryan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. r Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms.Shit<ha Palsule, proxy counsel for Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for R-2 WP (C) No. 3214 of 2008 A}TAND ENT & SPEECH CENTRE ..... PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate ' versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate c.M. PArEL Hos#iff) No' 32rs or2oo' Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mi. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Adr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate WP (C) No. 10X8 of 2008 K.K. SURGICAL AND MATERNITY CENTRE WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. ..... PETITIONER /, ..... RESPONDENTS ..... PETITIONER Pdge 6 of 35 A}TD $ (C) No. 3216 of 2008 GANDHI NURSING HOME PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekfiar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Adr. Daryan . Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate CORAM: IION'BLE TI{E CETF'F JUSTICE IION'BI.E DR. JUSTICE S. MURAI.IDIIAR 1. 2. aJ. Whether Reporters of local papers may be 'l allowed to see the judgment? I Yzl To be referred to the ReporLer or not? I Whether the judgment should bereported ) in Digest? .t't^ J{ID GMENT 24.04.2009 S. MTIRALNDHAR. 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) Rules 7992 is ultra vires the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act 1953 ('Act') and is also arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles i4 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The. other ptayer in the writ petition is for a. WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Pdge 7 of 35 \g 4L ! direction to the Respondents not to give effect to the said Rule 3 and to register al1 nursing homes which are eligible for registration urder the Act without insisting on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the irnpugned Rule 3. t.2It was submitted at the outset by counsel for the petitioners that with the changes brought about by the Master Plan for'Delhi (l\4PD) 202l,and the introduction of the mixed land use norns, the questions arising in the present batch of petitions ought to be left unanswered and that the petitioners' case be directed to'be considered by the Respondents under the new nonns. This ' Court is not inclined to accept this plea since the principal questions conceming the Act are bound to recur notwithstanding the new MPD norms. The petitioners have been protected tori. 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 Frovisions of the Act and the progressive changes to the Rales 2. The Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953 ('A:t') 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: WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Poge 8 of 35 J I ft '"(iv) Nursing Home means arLy premises used pr . intended to be used for the reception of persons suffering from any siclcress injury or infirmity and the providing of treatment and nursing for them and includes a mbternity home, and the expression 'cany on nursing'home' means to receive persons in a nursing home for,'any of the aforesaid purposes and to provide treatnent 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 regisd'ation in respect has not been cancelled under section 7. Provided that nothing in. this section shall ]Pnlv in the , case of a nursing home which is in existence at the date ' of the qommencement 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.Section 7, fhe supervising authority may at any time cancel the registration in respect of a nursing home on the same ground which would entitled the supervising authority to refuse, an application for registration of WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Page 9 of 35 if any person is convicted. under the Act or of an offence in respect of nursing home. 5 Th9 Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Rules Ig53 ('Rules') sets out the procedure for,applying for the registration. The Rules were further amended' in 1966. Therein a schedule. was added with reference to Rule 14. The Schedule sets out the requirement of the nursing homes including th: buildings, water.supply, health, clothing, sanitary requirements of staff and other equipments. Importantly, as far as buildings qe concerned, clause (1) (bxi) stipulates that "The building used for the nursing horhe shall comply with the relevant municipal bye laws in force from time to time". In the 1992 amendment Rule 3(i) further amended to read as under: "(i) The building used for the Nwsing Homes comply with ttre relevant Municipal bye-law as in forie and such guidetines as may be framed by the Ltd. Governor from time to time and the use of the premises shatrl conform to thu larid 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 bYeJaws". ndse to ol sir 1f thai t- WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. ,{ 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 forty years now. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act has been in force since 7957. For the New Delhi area, the New Delhi Municipal Committee's bye-laws have been in force {uring 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 a"reas for different purposes. The Schedule to the 1966 amendments to the Rules' set out that detailed standards for a building that was to be used. for running a nursing home. Position ander the Master Planfor'Delhi 1962 8. As far as the Delhi Developpent Act t957 ('DD Act') is concerned it preserved the status quo for the pre-1957 buildings in terms of Sectio n 14 thereof. At n9 point in time after the enactment of the DDA Act, or the . coming into effect of the MPD 1962 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 housing a nursing home noJ having to comply with the requirements of the MPD. Even otherwise the requirement of having to satisfy thb 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 applicabilrty of the municipal bye-laws to nursing homes. WP(c) No.4233/93 etc. Page 77 of 35 q/ v 9. In effect therefore what happened in L992 was only to add the requirement bf the nursing homes having to satisff the land use requirements if they had to be registered under the Act and Rules. The land use requirements were not new in the sense that the MPD already mandated.such compliance. If a nursing home did not comply with the MPD requirement as regards land use, it wouid invile penal action under the DD Act. All that the IggZ amendment to the Rules did was to incorporate this statutorily .i ,, mandatory requirement as an additional condition for grarrfi of registration to a nursing home under the Act. It was therefore not a nbw requirement. It was . in any event required to be complied with in terms of the DD Act. This carurot be viewed as being so drarnatically different froT 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 I r.r 1 t - 1- ^ ^f +L^ -^^,,:-^*^-+^ "-l^* +L^ l\fDT-\ oo ?lftorr ' unlikely to be unaware of the requiremerits under the MPD as regards land )' use. Main groands of challenge in the 1993 writpetition 10. W.P (C) No.aZT, of 1993, filed on 31d September iggZ 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 registration has been refused on"a reason wholly wP(c) No.42ss/ss etc. Page 12 of 35 ,ti/ -v extaneous to the Act. It is stated that while in respect of one Amar Heart Medical Centre at Panchsheel Park, regisfuation 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 C1\4PD), similarly placed institutions have been granted registrations. 11. It is submiffed that on26h March 7982 the DDA had prepared draft regulations for establishment of nursing homes. A decision was taken on 5ft December 1989 by u Tgh po*ered committed which had reiommended grarfiof registration to the nursing homes operating in residential areas for a number of .years. This was followed by a firther draft amendment to the , rules on 4'h Novembb r L99L 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 L992 came as a surprise to the petitioners. The immediate effect of the amendment was that a substantial majority of nursing homes stood disquatified from the beneficial provisions of the Act since they did not conform to the land use nonns under the MPD and the ZonalDevelopment Plan QDP) published under the DDA Act L957. The representations made by the petitioners were to no avat1^ A news item had appeared on 1't April 1993 reporting the stand taken by the Union of India in parliament that nursing home established prior to 1" August 1990 could continue till1996 with payment of the requisite fee. WP(c) No.4233/es etc. ' Page 13 of35 IIt' ?) LZ. 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 lgg2amendmentto the Rules is also challenged as being violative of Arricles 14 and 19(1Xg) oith" Constitution. In effect it is submitted that by insisting on compliance with the land use nonns as per the MPD, alatge 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.companie' *o"ld cover oniy such hospitals and nursing homes as ale registered with local authorities. It is pointed out that the ground reality was that out of thousands of nursing homes operating in Delhi only 117 were registered and even these would face deregistration in terms of the impugned amendment to the Rules' 13. The impugned Rule is challenged as being ultr\ vires Sections 5 and 16. of the Act cine the latter do not specify compliance 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 norm not prescribed thereunder ca6ot be imposed particularly when such nonn has no nexus with the standard stipulated in section 5(d) of the Act. It is submitted that by not permitting nursing homes in residential areas, citizens would be deprived of timely WP(C) No.42ss/93 etc' Page 74 of 35 \/t l.i I access to medical facilities particularly in emergency situations' It is submitted that as long as the conditions under the Act are satisfied' the questionwhetheranursinghomeormaternityhome.wasviolating*IeMPD Iand use norms was irrelevant f9r the purpose of grant of registration' The impugnedprovisionisstatedtoinfringethefundamentalrightofthe members of the petitioner DMA under Article tg(lXg) of the constitution' Proceeclings in,the 1993 writ petitiQn by the DMA 14. Notice was directed to issue in the said writ petition by this court on 7tr Septembe t |993. However even aftet a !9at,i.e. till 13tr Septemuel |994, none of the Respondents had frred their repries. A prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners that.a comprehensive survey be conducted of th'b nursing homes in Delhi both in the conforming as welr as non-conforming, afeas.TheCourtfoundthatResponderrtNo.4DelhiDevelopmentAuthority (DDA)hadnotbeenappearingfor.thelastseveral.hearin*'_.**'.ewas issuedtoittoappea]onthenextdatel..e.26hootobertgg4.Thereafterthe Government of the National Cryital Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD')' RespondentNo.2,andtheDirectoratebfHealthServicesoftheGNCTD, Respondent No.3 frled a colnmon countgr affidavit' The DDA however did not file any affidavit by then. In the circumstances, this court directed on 26,h octo ber t994that Respondents z *'d3 "shall make survey of all the nursinghomesintheUnionTenitoryinconformingareasandnon- WP(c) No.4233/93 etc' Page 75 of 35 ?\, I* conforming areas irrespective of the amended Rule 3 which came into force on l't MaY 1992." ; 15. The DDA filed its affidavit in the writ petition on 8ft Decembtet L994' 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 Health 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 a\ta provides that 'the commercial activity shall be allowed only on the ground floor to the extent of 25% or.50 sq.m whichever is less ' lroviso that such establishment is to subject to the Provrso LrrllL Duv' be run by the residents of the dwelling unit and thereafter, als'o provides for ? restriction by excluding certain activities which are not permitted' The Master Plan firther provides that a professional activrty is permitted 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 25o/o of 50 sq.m whichever is less for non-residential O\"ll r, , r, wP(c) No.4233/93 etc' ^ d nuisance activity which is rendered for rendering 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 Lg53 have been endcted for regulating the activities under the jurisdiction of Delhi Development Authority as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said Bye-Iaws are applicable to the Building Regulation activity in the Union Territory of Delhi and the same apply to the design and construction of the building in case of building is erected'" 16. The GNCTD frled a further affidavit on 20m January t995 in compliance with this court,s direction issued onl6th.october tggl.In the said affidavit it was inter alia stated that in response to the advertisement issued asking nursing homes to submit particulars in the ' prescribed proforma ' 433 applications had begn received from unregistered nursing homes' It was stated that "majorlty of the nursing homes surveyed fulfil the requisite medicar standards as prescribed under the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act lg53 and Rules framed thereunder except amended Rule.3' Exact numberwillbeinformedatthetimeofhearing'" 17. This Court was infonhed at the hearin g on23'd January 1995 by learned counsel for the GNCTD that out of 433 nursing homes which had responded' I): ! wP(c) No.4233/93 etc' Page 77 of 35 / to the advertisement issued by it only 243 requisite medical standards as prescribed under 1 8. The petition'er, Delhi Medical'Association, on 3'd May 1995. Thereafterby an order dated Rule, this Court took on record the statement Director, Health Services and passed a detail portions of which read as under: "In view of the statements made rn Director, Health Services that maj surveyed fulfil the requisite medical under Delhi Nwsing Homes Registrati framed thereunder except satisffing the amended Rule 3 we consider it such an interim direction pending respondents not to take anY action Nursing Homes Regi'stration Act, 1953 the provisions of Rule 3 of Delhi (Amendment) Rules 1992, Provided medicai standards as prescribed Regi'stration Act, L954 and Rules amended Rule 3 of the Rules." 19. This Courf further explained in the said o direction "taT<tng into consideration the fact homes .were'established and have been when the provisions of