JUDGMENT : We have perused the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand as also the rejoinder thereto filed by the party in person/petitioner. 2. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Director-in-Chief of the Health Services is silent as to compliance with the standards prescribed under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 by Government institutions and only gives some data with regard to private establishments. When the definition of a clinical establishment in Section 2(C) of the Act includes clinical establishments owned, controlled or managed by a Government or a department of a Government, it is but natural to expect compliance with the standards laid down under the said statute by such clinical establishments which are owned, controlled or managed by the Governmental or a department of a Government. 3. We direct the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand to file a supplementary counter affidavit with regard to compliance by such establishments also of the provisions of the above statute and the Rules made thereunder. 4. The party in person/petitioner also mentions that there are 25 types of clinical establishments covered under the Statute and only 8 to 10 categories are mentioned in this supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand. The 25 categories are enumerated in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit. 5. He has also pointed out that standard treatment guidelines as per the Clinical Establishments Guidelines, 2010 under different categories of illness or ailment and health conditions are also not mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit. List of these are mentioned in paragraph 5 B at pages 4 to 8. 6. We find force in the submissions of the party in person/petitioner and also notice that the data supplied with the supplementary counter affidavit is incomplete insofar as the following details are not furnished: “7. xx xx xx a) Date of complaint against particular Clinical Establishments not mentioned. b) Complaint was made through public or by inspection of health department, it is not mentioned. c) On what nature of offense, monetary penalty imposed or other action was taken, it is not mentioned. d) Whether nature of offense was first contravention, second contravention or the subsequent contravention, it is not mentioned. b) Complaint was made through public or by inspection of health department, it is not mentioned. c) On what nature of offense, monetary penalty imposed or other action was taken, it is not mentioned. d) Whether nature of offense was first contravention, second contravention or the subsequent contravention, it is not mentioned. e) Reason for taking action has been mentioned almost same for all categories of Clinical Establishments, (Non Compliance of Standard) f) Current status of Clinical Establishments after taking action not mentioned in data submitted as Supplementary Counter Affidavit. g) Summary and discrepancies in the data submitted as "action taken report" or it can be said "Revenue collection report in the form of penalty as a formality by Health Dept. for Govt. of Jharkhand" xx xx xx 7. The party in person/petitioner has also painstakingly pointed out in his rejoinder district wise how many clinical establishments are there in each district; what standards they have not complied; whether the contraventions are for the first time or multiple times and what is their current status. We place on record our appreciation for the thorough study made of the subject matter by the party in person/petitioner. 8. We direct the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand to rectify the discrepancies pointed out in the rejoinder affidavit of the party in person/petitioner and file a fresh supplementary counter affidavit complete in all details as mentioned above by the next date of hearing. 9. List on 05.03.2025.