Allowed

Anil Atmaram Shinde v. the District Appropriate Authority and District Civil Surgeon, Jalna and Others

Bombay HC12 Mar 2013WP/1198/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed the suspension of a petitioner doctor's sonography center registration and the subsequent sealing of his machine. The court held that the authorities failed to record satisfaction that sealing was necessary under Section 30 and omitted mandated procedures for suspension under Section 20.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 16/06/2012 suspending registration and the order dated 18/06/2012 sealing the machine are quashed and set aside.

Anil Atmaram Shinde Vs the District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

WP 1198.2013- (J)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1198 OF 2013

¶5

Dr. Anil Atmaram Shinde Age : 39 Yrs., Occ. : Medical Practitioner, Prop. Shinde Hospital, New Mondha Road, Sambhaji Nagar, Jalna. .... PETITIONER

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The District Appropriate Authority and District Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Jalna.

¶8

The Tahsildar, Jalna, Appropriate Authority under PCPNDT Act.

¶9

The State Appropriate Authority under PCPNDT Act at Pune. .... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for the State.

¶12

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶13

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2013

WP 1198.2013- (J)

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the

¶18

learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶19

The petitioner's sonography centre is registered under the provisions of the Pre Conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques ( Prohibition of Sex Selection ), Act 2003 [ For short ' PCPNDT Act ' ].

¶20

On or about 16/06/2012, the team of respondent No. 1 visited the petitioner's sonography centre, seized record and drew panchanama. In the panchanama, it is stated that the registration of the centre is suspended. However, in the said panchanama, it is stated that the petitioner has kept the record properly and so the sonography machine is not sealed. However, on 18/06/2012, the sonography machine is also seized. The petitioner filed

¶21

Appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The same is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶22

Mr. Dhorde, the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that even the appellate authority is satisfied about the fact that there is no controversy regarding discrepancy Nos. 2 and 3. The appellate authority refused to entertain the Appeal only on the ground that as far as first

¶23

3 WP 1198.2013- (J)

¶24

discrepancy is concerned, no satisfactory explanation is given. The learned Sr. Counsel further submits that even in the panchanama dated 16/02/2012, the authorities had satisfied that there are irregularities in the maintenance of record and so had not sealed the machine. When the authorities were satisfied that the machine is not required to be sealed, no reason is mentioned as to why the registration is suspended. Sub section (3) of Section 20 of the PCPNDT Act lays down the procedure to be followed before suspending the registration i.e. issuance of show cause notice, thereafter hearing to the petitioner and the report of the Advisory Committee. These are the steps before taking the decision of suspension of registration. Sub section (3) of Section 20 of the PCPNDT Act is the exception carved out. The said sub section (3) is to be resorted only in case the appropriate authority is satisfied when it is expedient in the public interest to suspend the registration. In the present case, the order dated 16/06/2012 does not depict the said satisfaction. The learned Sr. Counsel submits that the order suspending the registration can not be sustained.

¶25

With the assistance of the learned Sr. Counsel, I have gone through the order.

¶26

The sealing is contemplated U/s 30 read with Rules 11 and 12 of the PCPNDT Act and Rules framed thereunder. The authority can

¶27

¶28

WP 1198.2013- (J)

¶29

exercise the power and seal the machine only in the case the authority has reason to believe that the said machine would furnish the commission of an offence under the Act. In the present case, from the perusal of the panchanama, it is manifest that no such satisfaction is recorded. On the contrary, when on 16/06/2012 the panchanama was made, the authorities were of the opinion that the said machine is not required to be seized. The record is maintained.

¶30

In light of the above, said action of sealing of machine on 18/06/2012 can not be sustained.

¶31

It is submitted that the criminal case has been filed. The

¶32

affidavit does not state that sealing of machine would furnish commission of an offence.

¶33

More over, the present petition is in no way concerned with the proceedings. The Court dealing with the criminal case, may proceed on its own merits. The order passed herein would not affect the merits of the criminal case.

¶34

In light of the above, the impugned order dated 16/06/2012 suspending the registration and the order dated 18/06/2012 sealing the

¶35

¶36

WP 1198.2013- (J)

¶37

machine are quashed and set aside.

¶38

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

¶39

It is made clear that the present order would not be an impediment for the authorities to take action in accordance with the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶40

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶41

KNP/WP 1198.2013- (J)

Anil Atmaram Shinde v. the District Appropriate Authority and District Civil Surgeon, Jalna and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Atmaram Shinde v. the District Appropriate Authority and District Civil Surgeon, Jalna and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punja Trambak Patil and Others Vs Samadhan Chindh Patil

Vijaysing Bhuta Girase Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Indrasinh Shankarsinh Girase Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Shaikh Kathumiyan Banemiyan Vs Kisan Deorao Pawar Gpa Gangadhar Kondiram Kate

Nitin Bhagchand Talreja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rangnath Chimaji Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Mah