Section 21. Appeal
The Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of suspension or cancellation of registration passed by the Appropriate Authority under section 20, prefer an appeal against such order to--
(i) the Central Government, where the appeal is against the order of the Central Appropriate Authority; and
(ii) the State Government, where the appeal is against the order of the State Appropriate Authority,
in the prescribed manner.
How courts have applied section 21
- Section 21 provides an efficacious statutory appellate remedy; writ petitions may be dismissed as not maintainable when it is available.1,2
- The appellate authority must decide appeals within a fixed time, usually six weeks, and must consider all specific legal arguments raised.3,4,5,6
- Section 20(3) empowers the Appropriate Authority only to suspend, not cancel, registration.7,8,9,10,11,12
- Cancellation without show cause notice, recorded reasons, or 'reasons to believe' under Section 17 is without jurisdiction and a nullity.7,13,14
- An order passed under Section 20 without hearing the party or considering the explanation violates natural justice, and the alternative remedy under Section 21 is not a bar.14
- Section 20(3) is an independent power of suspension alone, to be exercised sparingly and only when immediate action is necessary in the public interest.15,16
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here mainly concern appeals and writ petitions arising from suspension or cancellation of registration of ultrasound centres and genetic clinics under the PCPNDT Act. Courts have consistently described Section 21 as the prescribed statutory appellate remedy, and have often dismissed writ petitions as not maintainable when that remedy is available and has not been exhausted. Some High Courts have instead relegated petitioners to the appellate authority, directing it to decide the pending appeal within a fixed period, usually six weeks, without deciding the merits. The appellate authority is expected to consider specific legal arguments raised by the appellant, and an order that ignores a critical issue such as violation of Rule 12 of the 1996 Rules has been held arbitrary and remanded.1,2,3,4,6,5
A recurring question is whether the underlying suspension or cancellation order was within jurisdiction. The Allahabad High Court has repeatedly held that Section 20(3) empowers the Appropriate Authority only to suspend, not cancel, registration, so a cancellation purportedly under that provision is without jurisdiction and a nullity. Where the order was not preceded by a show cause notice, recorded reasons, or the 'reasons to believe' required under Section 17, courts have set it aside. The Supreme Court has explained that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 deal with both suspension and cancellation after notice and hearing, while sub-section (3) confers a separate, sparing power of suspension alone, exercisable only where immediate action is necessary in the public interest with reasons recorded.7,8,9,10,11,12,14,13,15
Fewer judgements dealt with the merits of renewal or the appellate process itself. One court held that safety deficiencies in infrastructure justified rejection of renewal, outweighing livelihood interests; another set aside a denial of renewal and seizure of equipment where a pending civil suit and court orders protected the petitioner's possession. Where an order under Section 20 was passed without considering the explanation or affording a hearing, the writ remedy was held available despite the alternative remedy under Section 21. In one matter, the court partly allowed a challenge to a suspension by imposing a stay to prevent irreversible closure while disputed allegations were pending before the appellate authority.17,18,14,16
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 21
District Appropriate Authority Under the Pndt Act and Chief District Health Officer versus Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
Outcome: DismissedInterpretation of Sections 20(1), (2) & (3) of the PC&PNDT Act, 1994 read with Section 17; cancellation versus suspension of registration of genetic clinics; notice and hearing requirements under s.20(1)-(2); independent public-interest suspension power under s.20(3) requiring reasons recorded in writing;
DismissedOpenUpendra Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenPetition challenged dismissal of appeal against cancellation of a clinic's registration under the PCPNDT Act. The court, after clarifying the appellate forum, disposed of the petition by relegating the petitioner to the prescribed appellate remedy before the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, GNCTD.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenPCPNDT Act 1994 Section 21 appeal; direction/mandamus to State Appellate Authority to decide pending appeal within six weeks; ultrasound diagnostic centre, Amethi; writ petition disposed of without examining merits; conditional on no legal impediment; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT - C No. 9881 of 2024;
DisposedOpenThe High Court quashed an appellate authority's order dismissing a challenge against a PCPNDT Act seizure because it failed to consider the petitioner's argument regarding Rule 12 non-compliance, noting inconsistent rulings on identical grounds. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing within two weeks.
DisposedOpenThe Court disposed of a writ petition, directing the respondent to decide a pending appeal filed under Section 21 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, within six weeks without entering into the merits of the case.
DisposedOpen
Show 6 more
Dr. Tarun Kothari Vs District Magistrate / District Appropriate Authority (West),Pc & Pndt Act, Gnct of Delhi
Writ Petition (Civil)The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of registration renewal for a diagnostic centre under the PCPNDT Act. The authorities cited safety concerns regarding steep stairs and the absence of a ramp or lift for vulnerable patients.
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenThe High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the suspension of a CT Scan center's registration and subsequent equipment seizure. The court held that licensing requires lawful possession, not necessarily a registered deed, and barred the landlord from opposing the license while tenant rent arrears are being paid.
AllowedOpenThe petitioner challenged the suspension of his ultrasound clinic registration and unsealing order via writ, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 21(ii) of the PNDT Act before the Additional Chief Secretary.
DismissedOpenThe High Court of Gujarat declined to entertain a writ petition challenging show cause notices and the sealing of a sonography machine under the PC & PNDT Act. Holding that litigation against show cause notices is not sustainable when an alternative efficacious statutory remedy exists, the Court directed the…
DisposedOpenThe High Court of Delhi considered a writ petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner's registration and restriction of operations under the PPTD Act. The court analyzed the notice requirements under Section 20(3) and granted a limited stay on the restriction of CT/MRI machines pending the final decision on…
Writ Petition (Civil)OpenThis court set aside an order passed by the District Medical and Health Officer under the PC&PNDT Act for violating principles of natural justice. The authority failed to consider the petitioners' explanation before passing the order, rendering the order illegal and arbitrary.
AllowedOpen
Upendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenUpendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpen
Show 4 more
Upendra Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Family Welfare Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others
Outcome: AllowedAllahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.), WRIT-C No. 4371 of 2025, decided 17.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44621), Upendra Goswami v. State of U.P. Keywords: PCPNDT Act; section 20(3) — power to suspend only, not cancel, registration of genetic clinic/ultrasound centre;
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenPCPNDT Act 1994 — legality of search and seizure under Section 30 ('reason to believe'); suspension under Section 20(3) 'public interest'; cancellation without Section 20(2) show cause notice and without Advisory Committee recommendation (Sections 17(4)(d), 17(4)(i));
AllowedOpenDiagnostic centre sought direction for disposal of its pending appeal against the District Magistrate under the PCPNDT Act. Without entering merits, the court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within six weeks in accordance with law.
DisposedOpen