HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP (C) No. 912 of 2008 HAN DA STONE CLINIC 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 of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 24.04-2009 This petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment passed today in WP(C) No.4233/1993. Interim order stands vacated. Pending applications are disposed of in terms of the judgment. A copy of the judgment be placed on the file. CHIEF JUSTICE APRIL 24, 2009 "V" S. MURALIDHAR, J. h 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 % IN THE HIGH COUIIT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI • WP(C) No. 4233 of 1993 Date of decision: April 24, 2009 DELHI MEDICAL ASSOCIATION & ORS. PETITIONERS Tiirough: Mr. S.P. Kaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.Praveen Chauhan and Mr. Anmol Sinha, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. S.D. Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. LPA No. 132 of 2008 SANTOM HOSPITAL APPELLANT Through: Ms. Radhilca Chandrashekhar, Advocate versus GOVT. OFNCTOFDELm&ORS. RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. 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 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, Mr. S.D.*Salwan, Advocate for GNCTD WP (C) No. 6788 of 2007 KISHNI DEVI CHARTIABLE CLINIC & ORS. ..... PETITIONERS Through: Ms. RadhilcaChandrasheldiar, Advocate versus i WP(C) No. 4233/93 etc. Page1 of35 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. RESPOISIDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. WP(C) No. 6789 of 2007 SHANTI CLINIC PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhair, 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.Zubeda Begum, Advocate WP (C) No. 6795 of 2007 APOTHECARIES LIMITED 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 of Health Services. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate WP (C) No. 7290 of 2007 INDIAN HOSPITAL 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 of Health Services. WP (C) No. 8258 of 2007 LIFE LINE MEDICAL CENTRE ..... PETITIONER Through;Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar,Advocate versus WP(C) No. 4233/93 etc. Page 2 of.35 m % 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 versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services, Ms. Purbali Bora, proxy counsel for Ms. Aruna Tiku',Advocate WP (C) No. 8833 of 2007 DR. BALA DEVI'S HEALTHY FAMILY ANDANR ....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 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. 8908 of 2007 J.M.S.S. HOSPITAL PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrasheldiar, Advocate WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. Page3 of35 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. 9384 of 2007 Dr. S.P. MAHESHWARI PETITIONER Through: Mr. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. WP (C) No. 524 of 2008 AAKASH EYE & GENERAL HOSPIAL PETITIONER Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashelchar, Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain, Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. WP (C) No. 909 of 2008 WELCOME HEALTH CARE CENTRE AND HOSPITAL PETITIONER Through:Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhar,Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumar TandonwithMr. DaiyanHussain,Advocatefor Directorateof Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 910 of 2008 WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. ^"9^4of35 ANAND MAYA HOSPITAL PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate versus GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI& ORS. RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumarTandonwith Mr. DaiyanHussain,Advocatefor Directorateof Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 911 of 2008 AGRAWALEYE INSTITUTE PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI&ORS. RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumarTandonwith Mr. DaiyanHussain,Advocatefor Directorate of Health Services. • . Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 912 of 2008 HANDASTONECLINIC PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI&ORS. RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumarTandonwith Mr. DaiyanHussain,Advocatefor Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP (C) No. 915 of 2008 SHARMAMEDICALCENTRE PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrasheldiar,Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI&ORS. RESPONDENTS • WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. ^ Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Tandon with Mr. Daiyan Hussain,Advocate for Directorate of Health Services. Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate for GNCTD. WP(C) No. 1018 of 2008 K.K. SUR-GICALAND MATERNITY CENTRE PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate versus GOVT. OFNCT OF DELHI& ORS. RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumarTandonwith Mr. DaiyanHussain,Advocatefor Directorate of Health S ervices. Ms.ShikhaPalsule,proxy counselfor Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for R-2 WP (C) No. 3214 of 2008 ANANDENT& SPEECHCENTRE PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrasheldiar,Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI& ORS. RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumarTandonwith Mr. DaiyanHussain,AdvocateforDirectorateof Health Services. Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate WP(C) No. 3215 of 2008 C.M. PATELHOSPITAL .....PETITIONER Through:Ms. RadhikaChandrashekhar,Advocate versus GOVT. OF NCTOF DELHI& ORS. RESPONDENTS Through:Mr. VivekKumarTandonwithMr..Daiyan Hussain,AdvocateforDirectorateof HealthServices, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate AND WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. Page6of35 WP (C) No. 3216 of 2008 GANDHt NURSING HOME 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 of Health Services, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate \ CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be -n allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referredto theReporterornot? j 3. Whetherthejudgmentshouldbe reported^ in Digest? JUDGMENT 24.04.2009 S. MURALIDHAR, J. 1.1 These petitions and appeals raise similar questions and are accordingly I beingdisposedofby this commonjudgment.The leadpetition,.WritPetition (C) No. 4233 of 1993 by the Delhi Medical Association seeks a declaration that Rule 3 of the Delhi Nursing Home (Amendment) Rules 1992 is ultra vires the Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act 1953 ('Act') and is also arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The other prayer in the writ petition is for a. WP(C) No. 4233/93 etc. Page 7 of35 direction to the Respondents not to give effect to the said Rule 3 and to register all nursing homes which are eligible for registration under the Act without insisting on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the impugned Rule 3. 1.2 It was submitted at the outset by counsel for the petitioners that with the changes brought about by the Master Plan for Delhi (MPD) 2021, and the introduction of the mixed land use norms, 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 norms. This Court is not inclined to accept this plea since the principal questions concerning the Act are bound to recur notwithstanding the new MPD norms. 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 Provisions 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 2(iv) of the Act, a nursing home has been defined thus; WP(C} No. 4233/93etc. Page8 of35 t "(iv) Nursing Home means any premises used or intended to be used for the reception of persons suffering from any sicknessinjuryor infirmityand the providingof 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 aforesaidpurposes and to provide treatmentor nursing for them." 3. Section'3prohibitsthe running of a nursinghome withoutregistration. The saidprovisionreads asunder: "3. Prohibition to carry on nursing home without registration- No.person shall carry on a nursinghome unless he has been duly registeredin respect of such nursinghome and theregistrationin respecthas hotbeen cancelled under section 7. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply in the case of a nursinghome which is in existenceat the date of the commencement of this Act, for a period of three months from such date or if an application for registrationis madewithinthatperiodinaccordancewith' the provisions of section 4 until such application is , finally disposed of" 4. Under Section 7, the supervisingauthoritymay at any time cancel the registrationin respectof anursinghome on the same groundwhich would entitledthe supervisingauthorityto refuse an applicationfor registrationojr WP{C}No. 4233/93etc. ^ 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 1953 ('Rules') sets out the procedurefor-applyingfor the registration.The Rules were furtheramended 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,sanitaryrequirementsof staffand other equipments.Importantly,as far as buildingsare concerned,clause (1) (b)(i) stipulatesthat "The buildingused for the nursinghome shall comply with the relevantmunicipalbye 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 Nursing Homes comply with the relevant Municipal bye-law as in force and such guidelines as may be framed by the Ltd. Governor from time to time and the use of the premises shall conform to the laiid Mse prescribed under relevant iaw(s)." (emphasis supplied) 6. Appendedto the rules was the 'standardfor a nursinghome, maternity home'. Thereunder it is clearly stipulatedthat "building must comply with the municipal bye-laws". WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. P"9e10of35 { 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 1957. For the New Delhi area, the New Delhi Municipal Committee's bye-laws have been in force during 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 1966 amendments to the Rules set out that detailed standards for a building that was to be used for running a nursing home. Position under the Master Plan for Delhi 1962 8. As far as the Delhi Development Act 1957 ('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 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 buHding housing a nursing home not having to comply with the requirements of the MPD. Even otherwise the requirement of having to satisfy 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. Page 11 of 35 9. In effect therefore what happened in 1992 was only to add the requirementofthe nursinghomeshavingto satisfythe landuserequirements if they had to be registered under the Act and Rules. The land use requirementswerenotnew in the sensethatthe MPD alreadymandatedsuch compliance.Ifanursinghome did not complywiththe MPD requirementas regardslanduse, itwouldinvitepenalactionunderthe DD Act. All thatthe 1992 amendment to the Rules did was to incorporate this statutorily mandatoryrequirementas an additionalconditionfor grantofregistrationto anursinghomeunderthe Act. Itwas thereforenot anewrequirement.Itwas in any event requiredto be compliedwith in terms of the DD Act. This carmot be viewed as being so dramaticallydifferentfrom the restrictions aheadyin place as regardsthe use ofbuildingsfor non-residentialpurposes. The nursing homes which aheady conformedto building bye laws were unlikelyto be unawareofthe requirementsunderthe MPD as regards land use. Maingroundsofchallengein the1993writpetition 10. W.P (C) No.4233 of 1993, filed on 3'"'^ September1993 by the Delhi Medical Association,refers to the above amendmentsto the Rules. .It is stated that the respondentshad not been adopting a consistentpattern in regard to registrationof nursing homes under the Act. There had been a numberofoccasionswhen registrationhas been refusedon a reasonwholly WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. Page12 of35 extraneous to the Act. It is stated that while in respect of one Amar Heart Medical Centre at Panchsheel Park, registration 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 (MPD), similarly placed institutions have been granted registrations. 11. It is submitted that on March 1982 the DDA had prepared draft regulationsfor establishmentofnursinghomes. Adecisionwas takenon 5'*^ December 1989 by a high powered committed which had recommended grantof registrationto the nursinghomes operatingin residentialareas for a number of years. This was followed by a further draft amendmentto the rules on 4^^ November 1991. It.is stated that in view of all these steps, the petitionersexpectedthat the authoritieswould come out with a coherentand clear policy which would advance the objectives of the Act. Instead the impugned amendment to the Rules in 1992 came as a surprise to the petitioners.The immediateeffect of the amendmentwas that a substantial majorityof nursing homes stood disqualifiedfrom the beneficialprovisions of the Act since they did not conform to the land use norms under the MPD and the Zonal Development Plan (ZDP) published under the DDA Act 1957. The representationsmade by the petitionerswere to no avail. A news item had appearedon 1'^ April 1993 reportingthe stand taken by the Union of India in Parliament that nursing home established prior to August 1990 could continuetill 1996with payment of the requisite fee. WP[C)No. 4233/93etc. Page13 of35 12. It is submitted that the insistence upon the compliance with the provisionsofthe MPD woulddefeatthe object'ofthe Act andthe Rules.The impugned1992amendmentto the Rulesis also challengedas beingyiolative ofArticles14 and 19(l)(g)ofthe Constitution.In effectit is submittedthat by insistingon compliancewiththe landuse norms as per the MPD, alarge numberofnursinghomes wouldbe renderedunauthorisedand be proceeded againstfor committingapunishableoffenceunderthe DD Act. It wouldalso deprivenursinghomes of the benefitsconsequentialupon registrationsuch as coverage by medical insurance since the insurance companies would cover only such hospitals and nursing homes as are registeredwith local authorities.Itis pointedoutthatthe groundrealitywas that out ofthousands ofnursinghomesoperatingin Delhionly 117 wereregisteredand eventhese wouldface deregistrationin termsofthe impugnedamendmentto the Rules. 13. The impugnedRule is challengedas beingultravires Sections5and 16 ofthe Act cine the latterdo not specifycompliancewiththe MPD landuse normsas one ofthe pre-requisitesfor registration.It is pointedoutthat since the Act is a complete code, a norm not prescribedthereundercannot be imposed particularlywhen such norm has no nexus with the standard stipulatedin Section5(d) ofthe Act. It is submittedthat by not permitting nursing homes in residentialareas, citizens would be deprived of timely WPlC)No. 4233/93etc. access to medical facilities particularlyin emergency situations. It is submittedthat as long as conditionsunder the Act are satisfied,the questionwhetheranursinghomeor maternityhomewasviolatingtt>eMPD land use norms was irrelevantfor the purposeof grantofregistration.The impugned provision is stated to inffinge the fundamental right of the membersoftepetitionerDMAunderArticle19(l)(g)oftheConstitution. Proceedingsin the1993writpetitionby theDMA % 14. Noticewas directedto issueintesaidwritpetitionbyteCourton7' September1993.Howevereven afterayear, i.e. till 13 Septembe , none of the Respondentshad filed their replies.Aprayer was madcon behalfofthe Petitionersthatacomprehensivesurveybe conductedof nursinghomes in Delhiboth'in the conformingas well as non-conforming ..eas The CourtfoundthatRespondentNo.4DeMDevelopmentAuthority (DDA) had not been appearingfor last severalhearings.Notice was % issuedto itto appearonthenextdatei.e.26^October1994. Thereafterthe Govermnent of the National Capital Territory of Delhi ('GNCTD'), RespondentNo.2, and the DirectorateofHealthServicesofthe GNCTD, RespondentNo,3 filedacommoncounteraffidavit.TheDDAhoweverdid not file any affidavitby then. In the circumstances,this Court directedon 26- October1994thatRespondents2and3"shallmake surveyof all the nursing-homes hr the Union Territory in conforming areas and non- Page 15 of35 WP(C) No. 4233/93etc. conformingareasirxespectiyeofthe amendedRule3wUchcameinto force on May 1992." 15. The DDA filed its affidavitin the writ petitionon S" December1994. The standofthe DDAwas as follows: "VI That the MasterPlan furtherprovidesthat in Health Centres or aNursingHome, there can be apart from its Health Centre and Nursing Home, onlyawatchandwardresidentupto 20 sq.manda chemistshop up to 15 sq.m. The premiseswhich is earmarked in lay out plan for as a use of •residentialhouse, cannotbe pennittedto be used for a nursing home, hospital, or a health care centre. In respectof residentialpremises,master plan inter aUa provides that the commercial activityshallbe allowedonly on the groundfloor to the extentof25% or.50 sq.m whicheveris less subjectto the provisothatsuch establishmentis to , i be nm by the residentsof the dwellingunit and ^ thereafter, also provides for a restriction by excluding certain activities which are not permitted. The Master Plan further provides that a professionalactivity is permittedin aresidential plot on any floor subjectto the conditionthat the residentofthe premisesshallbe permittedto use a part ofhis residenceto amaximumof 25% of 50 sq.m whicheveris less for non-residential WP(C) No. 4233/93etc. nuisance activitywhich is rendered for rendering the servicesraisedfor professionalsldlls. VII. That with the.above backgroundinrespectof the MasterPlan,I say thatthe DelhiBuildingBye- Laws 1953 have been enacted for regulatingthe activities under the jurisdiction of Delhi Development Authority as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said Bye-laws are applicableto the Building Regulationactivity in the UnionTerritoryofDelhiandthe same applyto the designand constructionofthe buildingin case of building is erected." 16. The GNCTDfiledafurtheraffidaviton January1995 in compliance withthis Court'sdirectionissuedon 26^ October1994.In the saidaffidavit it was inter alia statedthat in responseto the advertisementissued aslang nursing homes to submit particulars in the. prescribed proforma, 433 applicationshad been received from^ unregisterednursing homes. It was stated that "majority of the nursing homes surveyed fulfil the requisite medicalstandardsas prescribedundertheDelhiNursingHomesRegistration Act 1953 and Rules framed thereunder except amended Rule 3. Exact numberwillbe informedat thetimeofhearing." 17. This Courtwas informedat the hearingon 23'-''January1995 by learned counselfor the GNCTDthatoutof433 nursinghomeswhich.hadresponded Page 17 of 35 WP(C) No. 4233/93etc. to the advertisement issued by it only 243 were found to have fulfilled the requisitemedical standardsas prescribedunder the Act. 18. The petitioner, Delhi MedicalAssociation, filed an additional affidavit on 3"^^ May 1995. Thereafterby an orderdated 24^*^ 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 I under Delhi Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1953 and Rules framed thereunder except satisfying 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 respondentsnotto take anyactionunderthe provisionsofDelhi NursingHomesRegistrationAct, 1953 fornon compliancewith the provisionsof Rule 3 of Delhi NursingHomes Registration (Amendment)Rules 1992, providedthey fulfil all the requisite medical standards as prescribed under Delhi Nursing Homes Regi'strationAct, 1954 and Rules framed thereunder except amended Rule 3 of the Rules." 19. This Courtfurther explainedin the said orderthat it had issuedthe above. direction"talcinginto considerationthe factthatthe majorityof suchnursing homes were established and have been functioning from .before 1.5.1992 when the provisions of amended Rule 3 have been brought in and WPIC) No. 4233/93etc. P"9e18of35 consequently the issue of public health is involved and also in view of the fact that unless we issue such an interimdirectionit would cause hardship and agony to the general public undergoing treatment in those nursing homes." 20. At the hearingon IS^*" December1996 it was clarifiedthatthe stay order passed by this Court would not come in the way of the National Human Rights Commission ('NHRC') examining the complaint pertaining to the death of a 14 year old Class X student at the private hospital. 21. In the meanwhile the Chairman of the DDA (the Lt.Governor of GNCTD) notified the Delhi Development Authority (Permission of Residential Land and Building for Use as Nursing Homes) Regulation 2003. As per the clause VI of the DDA Regulations 2003 certain nornls were stipulated for permitting the use of residential premises for running nursing homes. The permission was to be granted by DDA subject to the fulfillment of these norms and further subject to the payment of a 'permission fee'. This Court has been informed that till date the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') has not framedanybye-lawsspecificallyfornursinghomes. 22. The MPD 2021 has stipulated new mixed land use norms. These will be referredto shortly.The DDA also notifiedthe rates for 'permissionfee' and that is stated to be under challenge in this Court in W.P. (C) No. 17379 of WP(C)No. 4233/93etc. Page19of35 2004 {National Medical Forum v. DDA). It is stated that this Court has granted an interim stay subject to the petitioners depositing 2.5% of the permission fee. It is pointed out that in 2007.DDA/MCD began demanding 'conversion charges' instead of permission fee. This was challenged in this Court by way of W.P. (C) No. 468 of 2008 {Delhi Medical Association v. MCD) and a batch of similar petitionswhich are statedto be also pending. 23. The contention of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 6795 of 2007 {ApothecariesLtd. v. GNCTD) and the batch of connectedpetitionsis that Rule 3 has become redundant in view of the DDA Regulations 2003 and the MPD 2021. One other contention is that a nursing home undertaking medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) cannot be asked to comply with the requirementsof the Nursing Homes Act as they are governedby the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act ('MTP Act'). It is stated that the GovernmentDepartmentswere not intendingto acceptany applicationfrom the nursinghomes for issuingNo ObjectionCertificate('NOC'), 24. In one of the connectedpetitions,W.P. (C) No. 5782 of 2007, a learned SingleJudge ofthis Courtby an order dated 4^^ February2008 rejectedthe prayer for interim reliefholding that as per the DD Act, the Municipal CorporationofDelhiAct, 1957 and the Buildingbye-lawsmade hereunder, a buildingconstructedfor residentialpurposecannotbe putto any otheruse. Aggrievedby the refusalof interimstay one of the nursinghomes, Santom Hospital, has filed LPA No. 132 of 2008 in this Court, The principal contentioninthe appealthatthe DDA has permittedthe use ofa residential WPlC) No. 4233/93etc. Page20 of35 remises for rumiing a nursing home and therefore the MCD which has admittedlynot framed any bye-lawsfor nursing-homesin particularcannot raise any objection. Importance ofthe Master Plan norms 25. One ofthe principalissues arisingfor determinationin the presentcases is whetherthe Rules in questioncan be amendedto insistthat in order to obtain a valid registrationunder the Act the building in question has to conformto the land use norms specifiedunderthe MPD 2021(earlierMPD 1962 as amendedin 1990)..The law as regardsthe importanceof a Master Plan prepared under a statute for the planned developmentof an urban conglomerationis fairly well settled. The Master Plan so prepared is a statutoryinstrumentwith all attendantconsequences. 26. In BangaloreMedicalTrust v. B.S. Muddappa,(1991) 4SCC 5^, the SupremeCourtwas dealingwith an instancewhere in the schemeprepared under the BangaloreDevelopmentAuthorityAct 1976 (BDA Act) an open space in a residentialcolony was earmarkedfor a public park. The Chief Ministerwroteto theBangaloreDevelopmentAuthority(BDA) for thegrant of a suitablesite to the appellantBangaloreMedicalTrust for settingup a privatehospital.The Chairman,BDA thereafterwroteto the ChiefMinister statingthat the appellant,was keen to constructa,nursinghome in the area reserved