Explain why TN has not given effect to law to regulate spas:HC

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to explain to it on September 19 why it had not given effect to a 1997 law aiming to regulate hair transplant centres, spas and beauty salons.
Justice N Kirubakaran said the state government must explain why successive governments had not framed the rules and when will it adopt the central Act.
The case was adjourned till September 19.
The matter relates to the death of a final year MBBS student, less than two days after undergoing hair transplant procedure a couple of months ago.
The issue came under judicial scanner when ARHT Global Hair Services Pvt Ltd approached the court to reopen its business in Chennai. It was locked and sealed on June 1, after the student's death.

When the petition filed by ARHT Global Hair Services Pvt Ltd came up for hearing on Friday last, senior counsel Vijay Narayan, assailed the closure order. He argued that it had licence under Chennai City Metropolitan Corporation Act, 1919, and was registered under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act.

The judge pointed out that Tamil Nadu does not have a regulatory mechanism because it had not framed rules for its own special law (Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997) enacted in 1997, and it also did not adopt the central law enacted in 2010.
The judge said the case established the fact that successive governments failed to take any follow up action.

Justice Kirubakaran said only four states--Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Sikkim, besides the union territories--adopted the central Act.
Karnataka enacted a law--Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act (KPME)--immediately after the incident in which the student died, requiring beauty clinics, spas and salons in the state to register under the new Act.