ORDER : 1. The petitioner, who is running Sundara Multispecialty Hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Hospital’) has filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 04.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon whereby the registration granted to the hospital for violation of Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Adhiniyam 2010 (For short “the Act, 2010”) which is also commonly known as “Nursing Home Act 2010” has been suspended for one month and it has been restrained to admit new COVID Patients for treatment for one month from the date of order. 2. The facts projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioner is running a super specialty hospital at Rajnandgaon. On 19.09.2020, the hospital was granted permission for providing treatment to 100 COVID patients out of which 60 beds are reserved for COVID patients and 40 beds are reserved for suspected COVID patients. The Chief Medical Officer and Health officer vide its memo dated 05.04.2021 has made dedicated COVID hospital to Petitioner Hospital. It was further directed by respondent No. 3 that out of 60 reserve beds 41 beds should have been oxygenated and 2 ventilators should be made available in the Hospital. 3. The Chief Medical Officer and Health officer vide its memo dated 05.04.2021 has made dedicated COVID hospital to Petitioner Hospital. It was further directed by respondent No. 3 that out of 60 reserve beds 41 beds should have been oxygenated and 2 ventilators should be made available in the Hospital. 3. The hospital was inspected by the Committee on 27.4.2021 and following short-comings were pointed out by the committee:- ^^1- bl dk;kZy; ds i= Øekad@2033] jktukanxako fnukad 5-4-2021 ds ek/;e ls vkidks dqy 60 dksfoM csM lapkfyr djus dh vuqefr Ánku dh x;h Fkh fdUrq vkids }kjk 100 csM ds dksfoM vLirky dk lapkyu fd;k tk jgk gSA blds lkFk gh vLirky Áca/ku }kjk 60 csM dksfoM ejht ,oa 40 csM vU; ejhtksa ds fy, gS dh tkudkjh nh x;h] fdUrq fnukad 28-4-2021 dks ,MfeV lHkh ejhtksa dk bZykt dksfoM ls lacaf/kr okMZ esa fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k gSA 2- fujh{k.k ds nkSjku dsl 'khV ,oa vafre fcfyax 'khV dk eqvk;uk fd;k x;k ftlesa iSFkkykWth VsLV] fgesVksykWth VsLV] ,Dl js] ;wŒ,lŒthŒ ,oa fljksykWth] buosLVhxs'ku dk fcy ejht dks pktZ fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr gkbZ Mªx ¼jsefMflfoj batsD'ku bR;kfn½ ds vfrfjDr vU; nokbZ;ksa dk pktZ Hkh ejht ls fy;k x;k gSA blds lkFk gh 'kklu }kjk dksfoM ejhtksa ds bZykt gsrq nj fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fdUrq vkidh laLFkk }kjk mDr vkns'k ds vogsyuk djrs gq, dksfoM ejhtksa ls vfrfjDr pktZ fy;k x;k gSA 3- fujh{k.k ds nkSjku vkids laLFkk varxZr jsefMflfoj batsD'ku dk Ø;&foØ; nLrkostksa dk la/kkj.k fu;ekuqlkj ugha ik;k x;k rFkk vkS"kf/k;ksa dk LVkWd fujad ik;k x;kA 4- Ø; nLrkost fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj batsD'ku Ø; esa cSp uEcj esa vfu;feRrk ik;h x;h gSA vr% bl laca/k esa vki viuk tokc 24 ?kaVs esa v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZ vf/kdkjh dks vfuok;Z :i ls ÁLrqr djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA** 4. The petitioner has submitted its reply mainly contending that on 19.09.2020 petitioner has been granted permission for 100 bedded hospital for COVID out of which 60 beds for COVID patients and 40 beds for suspected COVID patients. The rates which have been shown in the letter dated 05.09.2020 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh do not reflect about the rate of medicine or testing rate, and the office has not been informed about the rate for testing to be done and the medicine to be given to the patients. The rates which have been shown in the letter dated 05.09.2020 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh do not reflect about the rate of medicine or testing rate, and the office has not been informed about the rate for testing to be done and the medicine to be given to the patients. So far as Remdesivir injection is concerned, this has not been purchased by the hospital but a shop situated in the hospital premises is providing this Remdesivir injection. During the inspection, it has been found that there were 36 Remdesivir injections and after inspection, 7 have been found to be used and in the mid-night 288 Remdesivir injections were received by the medical store. Since, the injection is not purchased by the hospital, there is no irregularity in records maintained by the hospital, but due to technical problem in software, the irregularity has been reflected which has already been intimated to the inspection committee. 5. Thereafter, inspection committee has passed the order on 04.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) suspending the license of the hospital for one month. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the committee is without any authority. Under the Act, 2010, the competent authority is District Collector, as such the order is without authority. The show cause notice is quite vague, no specific allegations have been leveled against the hospital, no opportunity of hearing has been given to them. The action taken by the committee is in violation of principle of natural justice and as such prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 04.05.2021 and 05.05.2021 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon (C.G.). 6. The State has filed their return, in which, they have contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has alternative efficacious statutory remedy of filing appeal before the Director Health Services, Raipur which is available to him under the law. Without exhausting an alternative efficacious statutory remedy provided under Section 10 of the Act, 2010 read with Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 also known as Nursing Home Rules, 2013 and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Without exhausting an alternative efficacious statutory remedy provided under Section 10 of the Act, 2010 read with Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 also known as Nursing Home Rules, 2013 and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended by respondent state that the petitioner hospital itself has made application before the Chief Medical and Health Officer for running regular hospital and license has been issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon on 24.08.2020. The application has been forwarded by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon to the Director Health Services, Government of Chhattisgarh, who has issued order dated 18.09.2020 authorizing, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon to grant necessary permission to the petitioner hospital and to admit COVID patients vide its order dated 19.09.2020. From perusal of the order, it is clear that the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon is fully authorized by the Director Health Services. 7. It has been further contended that there were news reports that the private hospitals are charging higher bills from COVID patients. It has also been reported that the hospitals are directly purchasing Remdesivir injection and black-marketing of injection is being done by the Hospitals. This matter was raised in the Legislative Assembly of the State and considering the said situation, the Collector has constituted committee for conducting an inquiry with respect to the petitioner hospital vide order dated 27.04.2021. The hospital was inspected on 28.04.2021, Committee has submitted its report (Annexure R/6). Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner hospital on 30.04.2021 pointing out the deficiencies and irregularities pointed out by the inquiry committee. The reply was submitted by the hospital which has been considered and the committee has recommended suspension of license of the hospital for one month and the same was approved by the Collector, who is the competent authority as reflected in the note sheet. As such, the order has been passed by the competent authority. The order does not suffer from want of jurisdiction. Before passing of the impugned order, the Collector has examined the report applied its mind, and thereafter the same has been approved. The order dated 04.05.20214 is a detailed order considering submissions made by the petitioner, it is reasoned one and prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 8. The order does not suffer from want of jurisdiction. Before passing of the impugned order, the Collector has examined the report applied its mind, and thereafter the same has been approved. The order dated 04.05.20214 is a detailed order considering submissions made by the petitioner, it is reasoned one and prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 8. One Lokesh Nahru through his counsel Shri Virendra Verma has filed Vakalatnama as intervenor. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder to the return filed by the State. The brief facts reflected from rejoinder are that there is no bar for this Court to entertain the writ petition even if the petitioner has alternate remedy of filing of an appeal, writ petition is maintainable. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon/respondent No. 3 has no jurisdiction to pass order dated 04.05.2021 for suspension of license granted to the hospital for one month. Under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Adhiniyam 2010 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act, 2010’) power to suspend or cancel the license of hospital has been given to the supervisory authority only and as per the Rules, 2013 supervisory authority has been defined under Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Niyam, 2013. “The District Collector” is the supervisory authority, who can pass the order. It is further submitted that as per Section 9(3) of the Act 2010, 30 days' time should be given to the hospital for submitting its reply, but in the instant case, 24 hours time has been given, which is in violation of the Act. It is further contended that no power of delegation has been given in the Statute to by the supervisory authority to delegate its power to District Committee. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) and Others vs. Director General of Civil Aviation and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 435 wherein the Supreme Court has held in Para 28 as under:- “28. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. In view of the above, the legal position emerges that the authority who has been vested with the power to exercise its discretion alone can pass the order. Even senior official cannot provide for any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute to act in a particular manner.” 10. The procedure which has been followed by the respondents are not prescribed under the Act, 2010 as Chief Medical and Health Officer suspended licence granted to the hospital, it cannot take decision on behalf of the Supervisory authority as such the decision is illegal. It is further contended that the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon has no power to suspend the License granted to the Hospital. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab vs. Hari Kishan, AIR 1966 SC 1081 , Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 and Anirudhsinhji Karansinjhi Jadeja and Another vs. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 302 . It was further contended that the show cause notice was not specific and vague as such also it is in violation of principle of natural justice, therefore, the writ petition is very much maintainable. 11. The allegation of black-marketing was first time raised in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, which is not permissible in view of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 . In support of his contention, he relied on the other judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hukum Chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India, (1976) 2 SCC 128 , Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, (2002) 1 SCC 633 and Captain Sube Singh vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (2004) 6 SCC 440 . 12. The State has also filed application for taking documents on record on 22.05.2021 wherein, they annexed the entire note-sheets of the file related to the case of the petitioner. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record with utmost satisfaction. 14. From the pleading of the parties following points are required to be decided by this Court:- 1. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record with utmost satisfaction. 14. From the pleading of the parties following points are required to be decided by this Court:- 1. Whether in view of alternate statutory efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act, 2010, the present writ petition is maintainable? 2. Whether order dated 04.05.2021 has been passed without jurisdiction or authority by respondent No. 3, as such, deserves to be quashed by this Court? 3. Whether imposition of penalty of suspension of license to run the hospital for 1 month is commensurate to the violation committed by the hospital? 15. Since Point No. 1 and 2 are interconnected, as such, they are being dealt by this Court together. 16. Before considering the submissions of the parties, the would be necessary for this Court to examine the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Act (No. 23 of 2010) which are necessary for adjudication of the writ petition. The Government of Chhattisgarh has enacted the Act, 2010 with aims and object of achieving improvement of health care services and matters connected with. The said Act provides complete machinery for resolving the grievances of hospitals licensed under this Act. The relevant provisions of the Act is reproduced below:- “.......... 2. Definitions .......... (d) “Hospital” means any premise having facilities for treatment of sick and used for their reception or stay. .......... (o) “Supervisory Authority” means the person or authority appointed by the State Government by notification to perform all or any of the functions of the supervising authority as specified under this Act. 3. License - Any person, company, corporate body or association/partnership firm who intend to setup a nursing home or a clinical establishment as defined in this Act shall apply to the supervisory authority along with the details as may be prescribed. The supervisory authority shall grant license to the nursing home or a clinical establishment as the case may be if it is satisfied that the eligibility norms for obtaining the license are, fulfilled by the applicant. Provided further that all nursing homes or clinical establishment which are already in existence on the date of commencement of this Act, shall apply to supervisory authority within 90 days of commencement of this Act. Provided further that all nursing homes or clinical establishment which are already in existence on the date of commencement of this Act, shall apply to supervisory authority within 90 days of commencement of this Act. The supervisory authority shall grant them license if it is satisfied that the applicant fulfills the norms prescribed in this regard. .......... 9. Cancellation or Suspension of license - If at any time, it is found by the supervisory authority that: (1) A licensed nursing home or clinical establishment has contravened or not complied with any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder or any condition specified at the time of licensing. (2) A licensed nursing home or clinical establishment has been convicted of an offence punishable under this Act, he may after giving, the nursing home or a clinical establishment, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, cancel or suspend the license. (3) Notice to be given before cancellation of license - Notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act the supervisory authority shall give a 30 days notice to the nursing home or a clinical establishment whose license is sought to be cancelled or suspended. The notice shall contain the reason and ground on the basis of which the license is sought to be cancelled or suspended. If the noticee so requests, a personal hearing may also be granted to hear the defence of the noticee. If after following the above mentioned procedure and hearing the case of the noticee, the supervisory authority decide to cancel or suspend the license, he shall pass a speaking order to this effect which shall contain the reasons for such cancellation or suspension of license. 10. Appeal - Any person aggrieved by an order of the supervisory authority refusing, canceling or suspending the license may, within a period of 30 days after the date of such order - may file an appeal to the State Government: (a) The State Government shall hear the appeal through an authority duly empowered by it in this regard. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no appeal shall lie in any Court against the order of the State Government in this behalf.” 17. Section 18 of the Act, 2010 gives power to the State Government to make rule. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no appeal shall lie in any Court against the order of the State Government in this behalf.” 17. Section 18 of the Act, 2010 gives power to the State Government to make rule. Exercising the power given to the State under Section 18 the State Government has framed Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 on 20.08.2013. The relevant rules are reproduced below:- “3. Supervisory Authority: (1) The District Collector of the concerned district shall be the Supervisory Authority under these rules and shall be assisted by a District Committee in discharge of the functions assigned to it under the Act. (2) The Supervisory Authority shall consider the recommendation made by the District Committee in all matters and shall make decisions relating to registration and /or grant of licenses to a Clinical Establishment. 4. Functions of Supervisory Authority - The Supervisory Authority shall perform all functions necessary to regulate the functioning of Clinical Establishment in the State of Chhattisgarh, which are as follows:- (a)To grant/renew, suspend or cancel registration/license of a Clinical Establishment as per the provisions under Section 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Act. (b) To enforce imposition of penalties for under Section 4 and 12 of the Act. (c) To obtain fees for registration/issue of license as required under Section 5 of the Act. (d) To enforce standards as required under Section 7 and 18(2) of the Act. (e) To inspect and investigate as required under Section 11 of the Act. (f) To investigate complaints related to shall ful negligence with the provisions of the Act, as required under Section 13 and 14 of the Act: Provided that, the above functions of the Supervisory Authority are not exhaustive in nature. 8. District Committee: (1) The constitution of the District Committee shall be as follows: 1. Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) Chairperson 2. District Collector's nominee [Not below the rank of Deputy Collector] Member 3. Commissioner/CMO of the Urban Local Body of the Headquarter Town of the District Member 4. CEO, Zilla Panchayat Member 5. Representative of Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Member 6. District Ayurveda Officer Member 7. Civil surgeon, District Hospital Member-Secretary (2) At least 50% of the members must be present in order to form quorum in any meeting of the District Committee. The representation from the Urban Local Body/Municipal Corporation shall be compulsory. CEO, Zilla Panchayat Member 5. Representative of Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Member 6. District Ayurveda Officer Member 7. Civil surgeon, District Hospital Member-Secretary (2) At least 50% of the members must be present in order to form quorum in any meeting of the District Committee. The representation from the Urban Local Body/Municipal Corporation shall be compulsory. (3) The District Committee may form one or more teams for the purpose of inspection of Clinical Establishment. Such teams shall comprise of minimum 4 members, from various disciplines including a representative from AYUSH and the representative of Urban Local Body shall compulsorily be present. (4) The reports of Inspection Teams shall be placed before the District Committee for making recommendations to the Supervisory Authority in respect to Clinical Establishments, inspected by the team. 9. Appellate Authority: (1) Following authorities are delegated the powers to perform the functions of the Appellate Authority, to consider appeals against the orders issued by the Supervisory Authority, as provided under Section 10 of the Act:- (a) Director of Health Services - In respect of all Allopathic Clinical Establishments other than hospitals attached to Medical Colleges. (b) Director of Medical Education - In respect of Medical College Hospitals. (c) Director, YUSH - In respect of Clinical Establishment belonging to Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy systems. (2) The Appellate Authority shall issue a written receipt for every appeal letter/application received by it and shall dispose of the appeal within 90 calender days from the date of issue of the receipt. (3) The Appellate Authority may confirm, modify or set aside the Supervisory Authority's order or pass any such an order as it may deem justified.” 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to strengthen his submission that the writ petition is maintainable, would submit that impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 3 which is not authorized to pass order and since it is non-est order, the enquiry report has not been given to him which is violation of principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that time provided under the rule has not been given to petitioner, therefore, it is violation of principle of natural justice and suffers from procedural lapses, as such the writ petition is maintainable. 19. It is further submitted that time provided under the rule has not been given to petitioner, therefore, it is violation of principle of natural justice and suffers from procedural lapses, as such the writ petition is maintainable. 19. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of specific efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act, 2010 and the Rules made therein. He would further submit that from perusal of Rule 3 of the Rule 2013, it is crystal clear that the Supervisory Authority shall consider the recommendation made by the District Committee in all the matters and shall make decision relating to nursing home or clinical establishment. The Supervisory authority, who is District Collector, has to consider the recommendation made by the Committee. From perusal of note-sheet (Annexure-D) filed on 20.05.2020, it is reflected that the recommendation of the committee was placed before the Collector who in turn has accepted the same and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The Supervisory authority, who is District Collector, has to consider the recommendation made by the Committee. From perusal of note-sheet (Annexure-D) filed on 20.05.2020, it is reflected that the recommendation of the committee was placed before the Collector who in turn has accepted the same and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed. The relevant note-sheet which is necessary for deciding the issue is extracted below:- ^^ftyk Lrjh; fujh{k.k Vhi ,lŒMhŒ,eŒ jktukanxako dh v/;{krk esa lqanjk eYVhLis'kfyVh gkWfLiVy jktukanxako dk fnukad 28-04-2021 dks fujh{k.k fd;k x;k ftlesa dkQh vfu;ferrk;sa ik;h x;h ftlesa fjiksVZ ÁkIr gksus ds i'pkr~ lapkyd lqanjk eYVhLis'kfyVh gkWfLiVy dks uksfVl tkjh dh x;h uksfVl ds tokc dks ftyk Lrjh; desVh ds le{k ÁLrqr fd;k x;kA desVh }kjk lapkyd lqanjk eYVhLis'kfyVh gkWfLiVy ds tokc dks larks"ktud ugha ik;k x;k ,oa gkWfLiVy ds f[kykQ fu;ekuqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq fjiksVZ nh x;h gSA pwafd eYVhLis'kfyVh gkWfLiVy esa lHkh dksfoM ejhtksa dk mipkj fd;k tk jgk gS] uflZx gkse ,DV ds rgr dkQh vfu;ferrk;sa ik;h x;h gSA vr% egksn; th dh vksj mijksDr gkWfLiVy dks uflZxgkse ,DV iath;u ,d ekg gsrq lLisaM djus rFkk u;h ejht HkrhZ ij jksd yxk;h tk ldrh gSA egksn; dh vksj uLrh voyksdukFkZ ,oa funsZ'kkFkZ gsrq lknj ÁLrqrA lgh@& lhŒ,eŒ,pŒvksŒ dysDVj egksn; ;Fkk ÁLrkfor lgerA foLr`r vkns'k tkjh dh tk;sA lgh@& lhŒ,eŒ,pŒvksŒ iqu% ÁLrqr dysDVj egksn; ds fn;s x;s funsZ'kkuqlkj lqanjk eYVhLis'kfyVh gkWfLiVy xzke lqnjk] ftyk jktukanxako ds iath;u uflZx gkse ,DV dks vkxkeh 01 ekg rd fuyafcr fd;s tkus gsrq vkns'k dh Áfr gLrk{kjkFkZ egksn; dh vksj lknj Ásf"krA lgh@& ÁŒ fyŒ lhŒ,eŒ,pŒvksŒ iqu% ÁLrqr dk;kZy; eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh ftyk jktukanxako NŒxŒ ds vkns'k Øekad ,uŒ,pŒ,Œ@2021@2018 jktukanxako fnukad 04-05-2021 jktukanxkao fnukad 05-05-2021 ds ek/;e ls lqanjk eYVhLis'kfyVh gkWfLiVy xzke lqnjk dks uflZx gkse ,DV ds rgr~ tkjh iath;u vkxkeh 01 ekg gsrq fuyafcr fd;s tkus gsrq vkns'k tkjh fd;k x;k gSA mDr vkns'k iwoZ i`"B ls fujarj lacaf/kr laLFkk dks Ásf"kr fd;s tkus i'pkr~ muds }kjk ÁLrqr tokc egksn; dh vksj voyksdukFkZ ,oa funsZ'kkFkZ lknj ÁLrqrA lgh@& ÁŒ fyŒ lhŒ,eŒ,pŒvksŒA** 20. From perusal of the said note, it is crystal clear that the recommendation was placed before the Collector/Supervisory Authority and the same was approved, therefore, it cannot be held that the impugned order dated 04.05.2021 has been passed by incompetent person, as such submission of the petitioner that the order was passed by unauthorized person is incorrect and accordingly the same is rejected. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice dated 30.04.2021 (Annexure P/4) is vague, hypothetical and is not correct as in the show cause notice, it has been clearly observed that the petitioner hospital has found treating all patients in the COVID ward, which is in violation of permission granted to the hospital. It is pertinent to mention that the permission was granted for 60 beds for COVID patients and 40 beds for other suspected COVID patients, whereas all the patients were treating in COVID ward. It is very specifically alleged that the petitioner hospital is charging higher amount from COVID patients, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice is vague, is not acceptable and accordingly rejected. 22. Further contention of learned counsel for petitioner that as per Rule 9(3), the Supervisory Authority should give 30 days notice to nursing home or a clinical establishment, whose license is sought to be cancelled or suspended as per Rule, 2013, whereas in the present case only 24 hours time has been granted to the petitioner. The authorities have issued notice to petitioner directing them to submit reply only within 24 hours and the petitioner has submitted reply within 24 hours without raising any objection, without taking plea of any prejudice caused to the petitioner in submitting reply within 24 hours or without contending that they have not been given sufficient time to submit reply which has adversely affected its right to defence. In fact, the petitioner himself submitted reply within the time given to the petitioner, therefore, subsequently, he cannot turn round and take somersault by saying that no sufficient time was given as per Section 9 (3) of the Act, 2010 therefore, the contention of the petitioner that not providing 30 days time is violative of principal of natural justice, is not acceptable and is accordingly rejected. 23. 23. The judgment cited by the petitioner in case of State of Punjab vs. Hari Kishan, AIR 1966 SC 1081 is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as Rule 3 of the Rule 2013 specifically provides that the Collector has to act upon the recommendation of the Supervisory Authority. The Supervisory Authority has to act on the recommendation of the District Committee. Thus, the Supervisory Authority i.e. District Collector has rightly acted upon the recommendation of the District Committee, therefore, submission made by the petitioner that the Collector has not applied his mind, is incorrect and deserves to be rejected. 24. From perusal of Show-cause notice dated 30.04.2021 (Annexure P/3) reply submitted by the Petitioner and by impugned order, it is quite clear that dispute facts are also involved which cannot be adjudicated by this court while exercising Power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Thansingh Nathmal and Others vs. The Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1419 , Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 260 and Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 has culled out following parameters for entertaining the writ petition without exhausting the remedy or not entertaining the writ petition without exhausting the remedy:- 1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in wide terms. Hence, it is not subject to any restrictions, except the self-imposed ones. 2. The exercise of the jurisdiction is absolutely discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. 3. The self-imposed restrictions are essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. 4. The self-imposed restrictions are: firstly, if there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved party; secondly, if the case involves disputed questions of fact, which would require elaborate examination of evidence in order to establish the right which the aggrieved party claims through the issuance of a writ; thirdly, if the writ petition is hit by delay and latches. Since the writ jurisdiction is one of equity, delay would defeat equity; fourthly, if a party comes to the court with unclean hands. 5. Since the writ jurisdiction is one of equity, delay would defeat equity; fourthly, if a party comes to the court with unclean hands. 5. The existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on the power of writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 266 of the Constitution of India. 6. However, the said power is to be invoked only in exceptional cases and under extraordinary circumstances do exist, but also that the alternative remedy provided by the statute is “entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situation.” 7. Since the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invoking of a writ jurisdiction, the said jurisdiction may be exercised in four circumstances: (a) where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of fundamental rights. (b) where the principles of natural justice have been violated. (c) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. (d) where the vires of an Act is under challenge. But even when these grounds are made out, even then the exercise of the writ jurisdiction continues to be discretionary. 8. Before exercising the writ jurisdiction in face of the existence of the alternative remedy, the Court is duty bound to consider if the exercise of writ power would defeat the purpose, aim or object of the statute which provides the alternative remedy. For, the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may defeat the very purpose of the statute. 9. The High Court should also consider whether the exercise of the writ jurisdiction is in the interest of the public or not? For, the jurisdiction should not be so exercised as to adversely affect the public interest, remedy is available to the aggrieved party under a statute. Thus the moot questions before this Court are whether the petitioner has been able to establish the existence of “extraordinary circumstances” which would warrant the High Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction or not? And, whether the petitioner has made out even a prima facie case, that “the statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations” or not?” 26. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed on record, this court is of the opinion that no extraordinary circumstances is made out by the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material placed on record, this court is of the opinion that no extraordinary circumstances is made out by the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is not maintainable, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal as provided in the Act of 2010 and Rule, 2013 made therein. The contentions raised by the petitioner and the respondents have only been considered to examine whether any extraordinary situation is available for this Court to exercise its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 27. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court will not preclude the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 28. Since it is held that Writ Petition is not maintainable it is not necessary for this court to deiced the Point No. 3. 29. In view of what has been discussed above and with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, the instant writ petition is dismissed.