Allowed

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC2 Apr 2013WP/1477/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order suspending the petitioner's registration with the Maharashtra Medical Council and restraining him from medical practice. The order was issued under Section 23(2) of the PCPNDT Act before criminal charges were framed. The court held that suspension under this provision is permissible only after charges are framed. The writ petition was allowed and the suspension order wa

What did the court decide?

The order of suspension and restraint from practice passed under the impugned order was quashed and set aside.

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 W.P. 1477.2013 - [ J ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1477 OF 2013

¶4

Dr. Dilip S/o Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. : Medical Practitioner, R/o : Prashant Hospital, Subhash Road, Beed. .... PETITIONER

¶5

V E R S U S

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶7

The Registrar

¶8

Maharashtra Medical Council, Mumbai. .... RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr.N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S.K.Kadam, A.G.P. for the State. Mr.G.G.Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶11

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/04/2013.

¶12

2 W.P. 1477.2013 - [ J ]

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶15

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

¶16

The registration of the petitioner with the Maharashtra Medical Council is suspended till the final decision of the Court and the petitioner is refrained from medical practice and/or profession of any nature during the period of suspension. The said Order is passed U/s 23

¶17

(2) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 [ For short, ' PCPNDT Act ' ].

¶18

Mr. Ghanekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶19

that the charges are not framed. The matter is at the stage of evidence before charge. In light of that, the impugned order could not have been passed. Sub Section (2) of Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act applies only if the charges are framed. The learned counsel submits that the provisions of sub Section (2) of Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act does not have retrospective operation.

¶20

Mr. G.G.Kadam, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2

¶21

submits that the said order is passed pursuant to the letter received from

¶22

3 W.P. 1477.2013 - [ J ]

¶23

the appropriate authority. The appropriate authority did not bring it to the notice of respondent No. 2 that the charges are not framed and the matter is for evidence before charge.

¶24

The parties are at idem on one aspect i.e. charges are not framed in the criminal case and the matter is fixed for evidence before charge. Sub Section (2) of Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act reads as under :

¶25

" The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the Court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence ".

¶26

From the perusal of sub Section (2) of Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act, it is manifest that the Medical Council is entitled to suspend the registration only if the charges are framed in the criminal case. The charges not having been framed as yet, Respondent No. 2 could not have invoked Section 23 (2) of PCPNDT Act.

¶27

In light of the above, the impugned order can not be

¶28

¶29

4 W.P. 1477.2013 - [ J ]

¶30

sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. As the present Writ Petition is being allowed on this sole ground, I am not considering the other grounds raised in the Writ Petition.

¶31

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause ' B '. No costs.

¶32

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 statute and the rules.

¶33

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶34

KNP/W.P. 1477.2013 - [ J ]

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Dilip Prabhakarrao Kharwadkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Bhagwat Sarangdhar Sadaphal Vs Anusayabai Tatyaba Palande and Ors.

Amarsing Digambar Jadhav Vs Manoj @ Manojkumar Shamsundar Jadhav and Ors.

Keshavrao Sonbarao Tawde Vs Narayanrao Govindrao Tawde and Ors.

Ushabai Ganesh Mane and Ors. Vs Ganesh Sheshrao Mane and Ors.

Kashinath Appasaheb Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandarbai Namdeo Motegaonkar and Another Vs Shamal Govind Chamale and Others