ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order/notice dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 2, by which the licence of the petitioner granted under Madhya Pradesh Upacharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973 [in short ''the Adhiniyam, 1973''] has been suspended for a period of thirty days. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitionerSociety had decided to open a nursing home in the name of Prakhar Hospital, Gwalior. On 31.12.2019, the nursing home was inspected by the respondent No. 2 and some deficiencies were found which were mentioned in the impugned order/notice dated 31.12.2019. It is submitted that by the impugned order/notice issued under the Adhiniyam, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder, the registration/licence of the petitioner has been suspended for a period of thirty days and the petitioner has also been directed to rectify the defects, failing which the registration under the Adhiniyam, 1973 shall not be renewed and the petitioner would be required to close down the Hospital/Nursing Home. It was also mentioned in the impugned notice/ order that the proceedings for cancellation of registration/licence are under contemplation. 3. Challenging the impugned notice/order issued by respondent No. 2, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that neither under the Adhiniyam, 1973 nor under the Rules, there is any provision for suspension of registration/licence and, thus, the suspension of registration/licence of the petitioner's Hospital/Nursing Home is without jurisdiction. 4. This Court by order dated 20.1.2020 had directed the State Counsel to seek instructions in the matter and the petitioner was also directed to serve the respondent No. 2 by Hamdast notice. The petitioner has filed the acknowledgment of receipt of notice as well as supporting affidavit to show that the notice has been served on the respondent No. 2. Since the counsel for the State has not disputed the acknowledgment of receipt, therefore, it is held that the respondent No. 2 has been served. 5. Supporting the impugned notice/order dated 31.12.2019, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that on inspection various deficiencies were found in the Hospital/Nursing Home. For the better treatment of patients, it is necessary to maintain the Hospital/Nursing Home in accordance with law and since various shortcomings were found, therefore, the impugned notice/order has been issued. 5. Supporting the impugned notice/order dated 31.12.2019, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that on inspection various deficiencies were found in the Hospital/Nursing Home. For the better treatment of patients, it is necessary to maintain the Hospital/Nursing Home in accordance with law and since various shortcomings were found, therefore, the impugned notice/order has been issued. However, he failed to point out any provision by which respondent No. 2 can suspend the registration/licence. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that grant of registration/licence would also include the power to suspend the same as the respondents can always cancel the registration/licence as per the provisions of section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 6. Considered the submission made by the counsel for the parties. 7. Section 5 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 reads as under: ''5. Cancellation of registration and licence.- If at any time after any person has been registered in respect of any nursing home or clinical establishment and granted a licence therefor, the supervising authority is satisfied,- (i) that the terms of the licence are not being complied with; and (ii) that any of the grounds which would have entitled him to refuse the application for registration or licence, exist; or (iii) that the person registered and licensed, has been convicted of an offence punishable under this Act; or (iv) that any other person who has been convicted of an offence under this Act is materially interested in the nursing home or the clinical establishment. he may cancel such registration and licence.'' 8. Section 6 of the Adhiniyam,1973 deals with the procedure for cancellation or refusal of registration, which reads as under: ''6. he may cancel such registration and licence.'' 8. Section 6 of the Adhiniyam,1973 deals with the procedure for cancellation or refusal of registration, which reads as under: ''6. Notice of refusal or of cancellation of registration.- (1) Before making art order refusing an application for registration and licence in respect of a nursing home or a clinical establishment or an order cancelling any registration and licence in respect thereof, the supervising authority shall give to the applicant or to the person registered and licensed not less than one calendar month's notice of its intention to make such an order, and every such notice shall state the grounds on which the supervising authority intends to make the order and shall contain in intimation to the effect that if within a calendar month of the receipt of the notice the applicant or the person registered informs the authority in writing that he desires so to do, the supervising authority shall, before making the order, give him an opportunity of showing cause (in person or by representative) why the order should not be made. (2) If the supervising authority after giving the applicant or the person registered an opportunity of showing cause as aforesaid, decides to refuse the application for registration and licence or to cancel the registration and the licence, as the case may be, it shall make an order to that effect and shall send a copy of the order by registered post to the applicant or the person registered. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order refusing an application for registration and licence, or cancelling any registration and licence may, within a period of a calendar month after the date on which the copy of the order was received by him, appeal to the[Appellate Authority]against such order. [(4) Omitted.] (5) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of the order appealed against except so far as the[Appellate Authority]may order. (6) The [Appellate Authority] may, for sufficient cause order the stay of the order appealed against until further orders or until the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. (7) Where an application is made for slay of the order appealed against before the expiration of the time prescribed for appealing therefrom the supervising authority, which made the order may, on sufficient cause being shown, order the stay.'' 9. (7) Where an application is made for slay of the order appealed against before the expiration of the time prescribed for appealing therefrom the supervising authority, which made the order may, on sufficient cause being shown, order the stay.'' 9. There is no provision under the Adhiniyam, 1973 which empowers the competent authority to suspend the registration/licence. Furthermore, even in the Madhya Pradesh Upacharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Rules, 1997 (in short'' the Rules, 1997''] there is no provision for suspension of registration/licence. 10. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that since the impugned notice/order is an appealable order under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1997, therefore, this petition which has been filed directly before this Court, is not maintainable. 11. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the State. 12. Rules 20 of the Rules, 1997 reads as under: ''20. Application for appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the supervising authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Act or these rules may within sixty days from the dale of communication of the order to him, appeal to the State Government by filing the same in triplicate against the order. The application for appeal should be accompanied by a treasury receipt showing that fee of Rs. 100/- has been paid in Government treasury to the credit of State Government and a copy of the order against which the appeal is made : Provided that any such application may be entertained after the said period of sixty days, if the applicant satisfies the State Government that he has sufficient cause for not making the application within time.'' 13. From the plain reading of this Rule, it appears that any person aggrieved by an order made by the supervising authority in exercise of the powers conferred on its by the Act or the Rules, may prefer an appeal. Therefore, in order to hold that the order passed by the authority is an appealable order, this Court has to come to a conclusion that the impugned order/notice has been passed in exercise of powers conferred on the authority by the Act or by the Rules. The respondents have failed to point out any provision which confers the powers on the Supervising Authority to suspend the registration/licence. The respondents have failed to point out any provision which confers the powers on the Supervising Authority to suspend the registration/licence. Thus, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and de hors the powers conferred on the Supervising Authority either by the Adhiniyam, 1973 or by the Rules, 1997. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held that where the order under challenge is without jurisdiction, then the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by ignoring the availability of alternative remedy. 15. So far as the submission made by the Counsel for the State that power to cancel would include power to suspend is concerned, this Court is of the view that the registration can be cancelled after giving opportunity of hearing, however, in the present case, the registration has been suspended without giving any opportunity of hearing. In the present case, the order of suspension is independent to the cancellation proceedings. Further, it is mentioned that proceedings for cancellation of registration are under contemplation. 16. section 21 of General Clauses Act reads as under: ''21 Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws.-Where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued.'' 17. From the plain reading of section 21 of General Clauses Act, it is clear that power to add or amend or vary or rescind would be included in the power to issue/grant registration. Thus, the power to suspend would not be included in the power to grant registration. Therefore, in absence of any specific provision, the authorities cannot suspend the registration/licence. 18. This Court is of the considered opinion that the remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 20 of the Rules 1997 is not available to the petitioner. Thus, the power to suspend would not be included in the power to grant registration. Therefore, in absence of any specific provision, the authorities cannot suspend the registration/licence. 18. This Court is of the considered opinion that the remedy of appeal as provided under Rule 20 of the Rules 1997 is not available to the petitioner. Even otherwise, since the petitioner has not argued on the merits of the case or the correctness of the allegations made in the impugned notice/order dated 31.12.2019, but has merely argued on the question of competency of supervising authority to suspend the registration/licence and since the respondents have failed to prove that the supervising authority has power to suspend the registration/licence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition is liable to be entertained. 19. Accordingly, the impugned notice/order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) by which the registration/licence of the petitioner's Hospital/Nursing Home was suspended for a period of thirty days, is hereby quashed. The remaining part of the impugned notice/order shall remain intact. 20. With aforesaid observation, this petition is Allowed. ..................