- (1.) By an order dated 7.8.2006 the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Udaipur consequent to an inspection made by the team constituted by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services cancelled the certificate of approval for place to undertake medical termination of pregnancy. A petition seeking review of the order aforesaid also came to be rejected by the State Government vide order dated 12.8.2012. The petition for writ giving challenge to the orders aforesaid also came to be rejected by learned Single Bench on 17.9.2013, hence this appeal is before us.
(2.) The case of the appellant petitioner is that the certificate issued to it as per provisions of Rule 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2003') has been cancelled by the Chief Medical Officer, Udaipur without adhering the procedure specified under Rule 7(1) of the Rules aforesaid. Learned Single Bench while rejecting the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner held as under :- "4. The contention relating to natural justice also does not entitle the petitioner to seek any relief from this Court since admittedly in the appeal filed against the impugned order dtd.7.1.2008, the Appellate Committee gave full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 22.1.2013 and after giving an opportunity of hearing only, the appeal came to be dismissed vide Annex.24 dtd.12.4.2013. The original order thus stood merged in the appellate order. Moreover, as held by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is not an unruly horse or cure all judicial weapon so as to upset all public authorities' orders on that ground. It is not to unravel everything. It depends upon the facts of each case. The relevant extract of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines & Anr. Vs. Ramjee, 1977 2 SCC 256: , is quoted hereinunder for ready reference :- "13. The last violation regarded as a lethal objection is that the Board did not enquire of the respondent. Independently of the one done by the Regional Inspector. Assuming it to be necessary, here the respondent has in the form of an appeal against the report of the Regional Inspector, sent his explanation to the Chairman of the Board. He has thus been heard and compliance with Regulation 26. In the circumstances, is complete. Natural justice is no unruly horse, nor lucking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the from, features and fundamentals of such essentila processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt that is the conscience of the matter." 5. The fact remains in the present case that the petitioner had an opportunity and was given such opportunity by the appellate Committee. The offences prima facie made out against the petitioner are of grave nature and indicate such malpractices by such hospitals. However, this Court does not want to make any further observations in this regard lest they are taken as findings against the petitioner and his hospital and it is for the competent Court to dispose of the case in accordance with law. This Court does not find any sufficient ground to quash the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court."
(3.) In appeal, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant petitioner is that as per sub-rule(1) of Rule 7, the Chief Medical Officer could have cancelled the certificate only after satisfying himself that the facilities specified in Rule 5 were not properly maintained and the termination of pregnancy were not being done under a safe and hygienic conditions at the petitioner hospital.;