LAHORE: A single-member bench of the Lahore High Court, comprising Justice Munawar Iqbal Duggal, has declared illegal the sealing of three Punjab Healthcare Commission-registered sample collection centers at Lahore, holding that the Deputy District Health Officers had acted without lawful authority and due process, as they failed to observe the provisions of law in true letter and spirit while exercising authority.
Announcing a 17-page consolidated verdict on petitions challenging the executive action, the court directed that the premises be de-sealed forthwith, preferably within 24 hours of receipt of a certified copy of the order, as long as no other valid closure order of the centers is in force.
Justice Munawar Iqbal Duggal announced the consolidated judgment on October 20, 2026, in response to pleas of Muhammad Umar Hassan and Abu Huraira against the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, and others. The petitions concerned two SR Chughtai Lab collection centers, sealed on August 27 and 29, and one SA Chughtai Lab collection center, sealed on August 27 by the Deputy District Health Officers of Shalimar and Ravi Town Lahore.
Petitioners’ case
The petitioners argued that their establishments function only as sample collection centers and had been registered by the Commission itself. They contended that the sealing was carried out without disclosing any complaint, without an inspection team under the Punjab Healthcare Commission (PHC) Act, 2010, and without citing any provision empowering the officers to seal premises. Their counsel, Malik Kashif Raza Awan, argued that Section 22, read with Section 2(xviii) of the Act, governs inspections and that an individual District Health Authority officer cannot assume that power.
Respondents’ stance
The Assistant Advocate General and the Commission’s legal adviser relied on Section 36 of the Act, the Anti-Quackery Regulations, 2016, and a 2017 Commission directive authorizing Deputy Commissioners to depute officers to visit healthcare premises. The Commission’s reports alleged deficiencies in staff qualifications, sample handling, cold-chain arrangements, infection control and waste management, and, at the Begum Kot center, reuse of syringes. The respondents also argued that the petitioners had an adequate remedy before the Commission’s Hearing Committee.
Court’s findings
The court held that Section 22 is not limited to licensing and renewal, since it also covers inspections on complaints and inquiries into malpractice, and that the Commission cannot replace the statutory inspection team with an individual officer by administrative directive. It observed that Section 36 obliges executive authorities to “act in aid” of the Commission but does not transfer the Commission’s powers to them.
The judgment also held that the 2017 directive was issued for the anti-quackery campaign and cannot serve as a standing authority for routine compliance inspections and sealing of registered establishments.
It added that Regulation 5A of the Anti-Quackery Regulations allows sealing only in specified circumstances relating to registration and licensing, which the respondents had not established. The court stressed that quackery and non-compliance with healthcare standards are distinct concepts.
Distinguishing earlier cases relied upon by the respondents, including Muhammad Ahmad v. District Judge, Pakpattan (PLD 2026 Lahore 101), the court noted they involved established unauthorized medical practice.
On the alternative remedy, it held that proceedings before the Hearing Committee cannot cure a lack of jurisdiction at the time of the action, and that constitutional jurisdiction remains available where the competence of the acting authority is questioned. It also noted that sealing is a serious coercive measure, read together with Articles 4, 10A and 18 of the Constitution.
Commission’s powers preserved
The court emphasized that its ruling does not restrict the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction. The Commission may still inspect registered establishments through a properly constituted inspection team, investigate complaints, enforce minimum service delivery standards, and invoke the anti-quackery mechanism where the required factual conditions are established.
Where an inspection under Section 22 is required, it must ensure the team is constituted and appointed as the Act requires.
The court further clarified that the findings do not mean the petitioners have complied with all legal requirements or that the allegations are unfounded. The Bench categorically expressed that de-sealing does not allow the centers to undertake diagnostic testing or any activity beyond their registration and licensing status.
Later, the court allowed both the petitions with no order as to costs.
