Shifa Diagnostic Centre, Thru. Proprietor Salil Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Secy. Deptt.of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 7 Others

"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 29.8.2025 passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Pre Conception and Pre - Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994/ District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.

¶12

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice Notice/ summon dated 11.06.2025 issued by Chief Medical Officer, Ambedkar Nagar under Section 17-A of Pre Conception and Pre - Natal Diagnoistic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition.

¶13

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned decision/ recommendation dated 18.07.2025 made by the District Advisory Committee, Ambedkar Nagar, after summoning the original of the same from the respondents.

¶14

(iv) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21/22.07.2025 issued in furtherance of the impugned summon dated 11.06.2025 and impugned recommendation dated 18.07.2025 issued by Nodal Officer, the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1996 as contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.

¶15

(v) to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to impugned order dated 29.8.2025 passed by District Appropriate Authority, Pre - Conception and Pre - Natal Diagnostic

¶16

WRIC No. 9262 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994/ District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, as well as impugned notice Notice/ summon dated 11.06.2025 issued by Chief Medical Officer, Ambedkar Nagar; decision/ recommendation dated 18.07.2025 made by the District Advisory Committee, Ambedkar Nagar after summoning the original of the same from the respondent and the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 21/22.07.2025 as are contained in Annexure No.1, 2 and 3 respectively.

¶19

(vi) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow petitioner to operate/ run Shifa Diagnostic Centre, Ghasiyara Road, near Sabzi Mandi, Jahangirganj, Ambedkar Nagar."

¶20

The petitioner states that it is a proprietorship firm with the sole proprietor namely Salil Yadav which applied for registration of Diagnostic / Ultrasound Centre at Ghasiyara Road, near Sabzi Mandi, Jahangirganj, Ambedkar Nagar and was granted registration under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994.

¶21

The petitioner engaged the services of one Dr. Ashish Waliyan, a Medical Graduate and it also engaged the services of Dr. Anurag Tomar for conducting the ultrasound.

¶22

On 11.06.2025 Chief Medical Officer, Ambedkar Nagar issued summons to the petitioner under Section 17 A of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules.

¶23

On the same day another establishment of the petitioner namely Anaisha Diagnostic Centre was issued notice/ summon under Section 17 A of PC & PNDT Act, 1994. Another notice under Section 42 (4) of the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 was also issued by the CMO to both the establishments.

¶24

Opposite party no.8 did not provide any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner submitted its reply to the notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 17 A PC & PNDT Act on 02.8.2025.

¶25

The District Advisory Committee allegedly made some recommendation for the cancellation of the Registration of the petitioner under the PC & PNDT Act.

¶26

The District Appropriate Authority has now passed an order on 29.8.2025 under the P.C. & P N D T Act without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State – respondents that the petitioner has statutory remedy under Rule 19 of the Rules praying under the PC & PNDT Act, however, the counsel for the petitioner says that it is not

¶28

WRIC No. 9262 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

a statutory remedy as the Act does not provide any such remedy it is only rules framed under the Act which provide such remedy.

¶31

We are of the considered opinion that once the rules are placed on the table of the House and are accepted and notified they come within the category of the legislation unless the validity of such rules is challenged, the rules form part of the statutory provision and the petitioner has statutory remedy to avail the same.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioners at this stage says that by the impugned order the petitioner has been asked to deposit his ultrasound machine in the Office of the CMO concerned.

¶33

The ultrasound machines according to the petitioner are very expensive and highly sensitive equipments which may be destroyed in the office of the CMO.

¶34

In case, the petitioner files an appeal before the appropriate authority under Rule 19 of the Rules within a period of one week from today along with an application for interim relief such application shall be considered by the appropriate authority with regard to the safe keeping of the ultrasound machines of the petitioner and reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within one week thereafter.

¶35

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶36

September 23, 2025 mks

¶37

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shifa Diagnostic Centre, Thru. Proprietor Salil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Secy. Deptt.of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shifa Diagnostic Centre, Thru. Proprietor Salil Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Secy. Deptt.of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Virendra Bahadur Singh Thru. Sole Proprietor Virendra Bahadur Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 2 Others

Shabina Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 2 Others

M/S Satgur Traders Thru. Its Proprietor Ramji Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar Vs Election Commission U.P. Lko. Thru. Chief Election Commissioner and 5 Others

Pawan Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Sachin Kumar Shahi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others