Dismissed

Smt. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe) v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2012WP/8160/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the suspension of a petitioner's sonography centre registration under the PNDT Act. The Court found the suspension lawful as the Competent Authority acted based on the Advisory Committee's advice after being satisfied of a breach. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the suspension of the sonography centre recognition is dismissed.

Smt. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP-8160-11

¶2

skc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8160 OF 2011

¶6

Smt. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe)

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Suhas Patil i/b. Navdeep Vora & Associates for Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for State – Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶13

18 September 2012

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

¶16

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.2.2011 passed

¶17

by the Appropriate Authority confirming the order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Advisory Committee whereby the recognition of sonography centre

¶18

of the petitioner came to be suspended.

1/3

WP-8160-11

skc

Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the provisions of Section 20 of The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 Amended as The Pre Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection Act, 2003.

¶23

Section 20 of the Act deals with cancellation or suspension of registration and sub section (1) contemplates that the Appropriate Authority may suo motu, or on complaint, issue a notice to the Genetic Counselling Centre to show cause why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the notice. Sub section (2) contemplates opportunity of hearing being given to the Genetic Counselling Centre before the action by the Appropriate Authority, having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee for suspension of registration. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, though the action is taken under sub section (2) of section 20 of the Act by the Competent Authority, however on the advice of the Advisory Committee and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in law. A plain reading of the provisions of sub section (2) of section 20 of the Act would show that the action is required to be taken by the Competent Authority on being satisfied that there has been a breach of the provisions of the Act and

2/3

WP-8160-11

skc

the Rules, having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee. If this is the mandate of sub section (2) of section 20 of the Act, it is difficult for us to find fault with the action taken in the instant case of suspension of recognition of the sonography centre of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The Division Bench decision of this Court dated 16.8.2012 in the case of Dr. Sujit Govind Dange vs. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 11059 of 2011) also has a bearing on the issues involved in this writ petition.

¶28

Hence, writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶30

(SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶31

Chandka

¶32

3/3

Smt. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe) v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe) v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Enn Enn Corp Limited Vs Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund and Ors.

Mahesh @ Dargonda Basgonda Patil and Ors. Vs the Gramvikas Adhikari Chandur and Ors.

Mahesh @ Dargonda Basgonda Patil and Ors. Vs the Gramvikas Adhikari Chandur and Ors.

Smt. Kavita Pramod Kamble (Londhe) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Deepak Hiralal Regar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. M. Ramesh Kumar Vs the Competent Authority and Ors.