The High Court of Telangana has affirmed that statutory authorities cannot remain passive in the face of complaints regarding unauthorized clinical establishments. This judgment reinforces the duty of state agencies to enforce regulatory frameworks designed to protect public health and safety, particularly where unlicensed medical facilities operate in densely populated areas.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a resident of Bhupalpally in Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, alleged that the 7th respondent, Suraksha Hospital, was operating without any legal authorization under the Telangana Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. The hospital, located within the Annapurna Super Market at Signal Point Center, was constructed without proper setbacks, in a congested urban area, and lacked essential infrastructure required for safe medical practice. The petitioner raised concerns that this unauthorized functioning posed a direct threat to public health and safety.
Procedural History
The petitioner submitted three formal representations to the concerned authorities:
- 27 December 2025: First representation to the District Medical and Health Officer and Municipality Commissioner
- 29 December 2025: Second representation to the District Collector and Additional District Collector (Local Bodies)
- 12 January 2026: Third representation reiterating the urgency and requesting immediate action
Despite these submissions, no action was taken by Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 151 of the CPC.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to take immediate action under the Telangana Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, to prevent the unauthorized operation of the hospital and initiate penal or regulatory proceedings as mandated by law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether public authorities have a mandatory duty under the Telangana Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 to act upon verified complaints regarding unauthorized clinical establishments, or whether their inaction can be justified as administrative discretion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri Venkateshwarlu Dasari argued that the Act imposes a non-discretionary duty on the District Medical Officer, Collector, and Municipality to inspect, register, and regulate clinical establishments. He cited Section 5 of the Act, which requires prior registration, and Section 12, which empowers authorities to close unauthorized facilities. He relied on State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup to assert that failure to act on statutory complaints constitutes a violation of Article 21 rights to life and health.
For the Respondent
Sri R. Nagarjuna Reddy, Government Pleader for the State, conceded that the hospital was operating without registration but contended that the matter was under internal review. He argued that mandamus cannot be issued to compel action where administrative processes are already underway, citing State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad to suggest judicial restraint in matters of administrative procedure.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s argument that internal review justified inaction. It held that the statutory duty under the Telangana Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, is not discretionary but mandatory. The Court emphasized that public health is a fundamental aspect of the right to life under Article 21, and regulatory inaction in the face of documented violations amounts to state complicity in endangering citizens.
"The Act was enacted precisely to prevent unregulated medical practice in urban and semi-urban areas. When a citizen brings specific, documented evidence of non-compliance, the authorities cannot remain silent under the guise of administrative delay."
The Court distinguished State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad on the ground that it involved pending inquiries without evidence of prolonged inaction or public risk. Here, the representations were clear, repeated, and unaddressed for over three weeks, creating an imminent threat. The Court further noted that the hospital’s location in a congested market zone amplified the risk, making compliance not merely procedural but life-saving.
The Court also rejected the notion that Section 151 CPC could substitute for statutory enforcement. It clarified that while the Court has inherent powers, they cannot override or delay the execution of specific statutory mandates.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that authorities must act on verified complaints of unauthorized clinical establishments under the Telangana Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, and directed Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to consider the petitioner’s representations within three weeks of receiving a copy of this order. No costs were imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Duty Overrides Administrative Delay
- Practitioners must now argue that inaction on statutory complaints constitutes a violation of public duty, not mere administrative oversight
- A single representation, if specific and supported by evidence, triggers an immediate obligation under the Act
- Delay beyond 15 - 20 days without explanation may be grounds for urgent writ relief
Mandamus Is Available for Public Health Violations
- Writs of mandamus are not restricted to cases of clear illegality but extend to failure to enforce regulatory statutes protecting life and health
- Courts will not defer to internal processes when public safety is at stake
- This precedent applies equally to violations under RERA, RTR, and other health and safety statutes
Documentation Is the Key to Enforcement
- Maintain a paper trail: Submit representations via registered post, email, and in person with acknowledgment
- Attach photographs, site plans, and witness statements to substantiate claims
- Cite specific sections of the relevant Act in every communication to trigger statutory obligations
