The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently addressed a writ petition alleging arbitrary inaction by statutory authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002 (APAPMC Act). The Court directed the respondents to conduct periodical inspections of non-registered medical establishments, emphasizing the need for compliance with statutory obligations to uphold Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Nutanapati Ramana, a medical practitioner holding MBBS and DNB (General Medicine) qualifications, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He alleged that Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 - the State Level Advisory Committee, District Level Advisory Committee, and District Registering Authority, respectively - failed to exercise their statutory powers under the APAPMC Act, 2002. Specifically, the respondents did not conduct inspections or enquiries despite complaints dated 13.01.2025 and 23.01.2025, and representations dated 07.03.2026 and 28.04.2026 submitted by the petitioner.
Key Facts
The petitioner is a registered medical practitioner operating in Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh.
The APAPMC Act, 2002 mandates registration and regulation of private medical establishments, with authorities empowered to conduct inspections and enquiries.
The petitioner submitted two complaints (13.01.2025 and 23.01.2025) and two representations (07.03.2026 and 28.04.2026) alleging non-compliance by certain medical establishments.
The respondents failed to act on these complaints and representations, leading to the petitioner’s claim of arbitrary inaction violating Articles 14 and 21.
Procedural History
16301/2026: Writ Petition filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 06.07.2026.
04.07.2026: The 5th respondent (District Medical and Health Officer) submitted instructions indicating that notices had been issued and enquiries conducted in response to the petitioner’s complaints and representations.
The respondents assured the Court that they would conduct further inspections as required.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
A Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21.
A direction to the respondents to conduct inspections and enquiries into the establishments mentioned in the complaints and representations.
Consequential action based on the findings of such inspections and enquiries.
A time frame for compliance fixed by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the inaction of statutory authorities under the APAPMC Act, 2002 in failing to conduct inspections and enquiries on complaints and representations constitutes a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby warranting judicial intervention.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the respondents’ failure to act on his complaints and representations was arbitrary and illegal, violating his right to equality (Article 14) and right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
He argued that the APAPMC Act, 2002 imposes a statutory duty on the authorities to ensure compliance by medical establishments, and their inaction undermines the object and purpose of the statute.
The petitioner relied on constitutional precedents, including Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, to emphasize that arbitrary state action is antithetical to Article 14.
For the Respondents
The Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare submitted that the respondents had already initiated action on the petitioner’s complaints and representations.
The 5th respondent produced instructions dated 04.07.2026, indicating that notices had been issued and enquiries conducted.
The respondents assured the Court that they would conduct further inspections as required under the APAPMC Act, 2002.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the respondents had addressed the petitioner’s representations and complaints, albeit belatedly. It noted that the 5th respondent’s instructions dated 04.07.2026 demonstrated that the authorities had taken cognizance of the matter and were willing to conduct further inspections.
The Court emphasized the importance of statutory compliance under the APAPMC Act, 2002, particularly the duty of authorities to conduct periodical inspections of non-registered medical establishments. While the Court did not explicitly rule on the violation of Articles 14 and 21, it underscored the need for proactive enforcement of the statute to prevent arbitrary inaction.
"The respondents are directed to make an endeavour to conduct periodical inspections against the non-registered hospitals as noticed in the letter addressed vide R.C.No.Spl/APAPMCE/DMEMO/DM&HO/ATP/2026 dated 04.07.2026."
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to conduct inspections, thereby ensuring that the statutory obligations under the APAPMC Act, 2002 are fulfilled.
The Verdict
The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
The respondents are directed to conduct periodical inspections of non-registered medical establishments as required under the APAPMC Act, 2002.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Authorities Must Act Proactively
This judgment reinforces that statutory authorities cannot remain passive when complaints or representations are filed under regulatory laws like the APAPMC Act, 2002.
Failure to act can be challenged as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, warranting judicial intervention.
Practitioners should emphasize delayed or non-existent action by authorities as grounds for writ petitions.
Periodical Inspections Are Non-Negotiable
The Court’s direction to conduct periodical inspections underscores the mandatory nature of regulatory oversight.
Medical practitioners and establishments should ensure compliance with registration and regulatory requirements to avoid legal challenges.
Authorities must document their actions (e.g., notices, enquiries, inspections) to demonstrate compliance with statutory duties.
Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Inaction
Courts are increasingly willing to intervene in cases of administrative inaction, particularly when it affects public health and safety.
This judgment serves as a precedent for challenging arbitrary inaction under regulatory statutes, even if the Court does not explicitly rule on constitutional violations.
Practitioners can cite this case to argue for judicial directions to enforce statutory duties where authorities fail to act.
