Allowed

Dr. Yogita Pradip Fegde v. the Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon and Another

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013WP/1635/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the temporary cancellation of the petitioner's sonography centre registration and sealing of machinery. The court held that Section 20(3) does not authorize cancellation and the sealing order lacked requisite justification, striking down both actions.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute granting relief sought in prayer clause 'C'; impugned action and order quashed.

Dr. Yogita Pradip Fegde Vs the Civil Surgeon… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 1635.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1635 OF 2013

¶4

Dr. Yogita W/o Pradip Fegde, Age : 34 Years, Occu. : Medical Practitioner, R/o Muktai Hospital, Near Pandurang Talkies, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner Versus

¶5

The Civil Surgeon, District Jalgaon and District Appropriate Authority, under PCPNDT Act, 1994, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶6

Appropriate Authority, Medical Superintendent, Rural Hospital Varangaon, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Vikram A. Pawar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri Y. M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 08TH APRIL, 2013.

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶11

2 wp 1635.13

¶12

The sonography centre of the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prevention of Sex Selection) Act 1994 (hereinafter referred as to the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act for the sake of brevity). On or about 01.04.2012 panchanama was prepared by the authorities and in the said panchanama only it was directed that the registration of the petitioner's sonography centre is temporarily cancelled and the machine is sealed. Thereafter on 02.04.2012 show cause notice is issued to the petitioner seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why the said registration should not be cancelled and criminal case should not be filed. The petitioner replied on 07.04.2012. Though the criminal case is filed, no further action is taken against the petitioner.

¶13

Heard Shri Pawar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kshirsagar, the learned A. G. P. for the respondents. According to the learned A. G. P. on 22.02.2012, the petitioner had conducted sonography on one patient namely Varsha Kantilal Kondle and her report was given as abnormal. She was advised by the petitioner for DMC, but her forms were not filled up. The 'F' forms were also not properly filled in. The action has been taken under Sub Section 3 of Sec. 20 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act.

¶14

3 wp 1635.13

¶15

The scheme of Sec. 20 of the P. C. P. N. D. T. Act lays down that the Appropriate Authority may after issuing show cause notice and getting the reply thereof suspend or cancel the registration of the sonography centre. Sub Section 3 of Sec. 20 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act carve out an exception where an Appropriate Authority without issuing show cause notice can suspend the registration of the sonography centre. But Sub Sec. 3 of Sec. 20 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act does not authorise the Appropriate Authority to cancel the registration.

¶16

In the present matter the authority states that the action under Sub Sec. 3 of Sec. 20 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act has been initiated and taken. Perusal of the order, it is manifest that the authority has temporarily cancelled the registration which is not permissible under Sub Sec. 3 of Sec. 20 of the Act. The said order is without jurisdiction and exceeding the powers given under Sub Sec. 3 of Sec. 20 of the Act to the Appropriate Authority, such an order cannot be sustained.

¶17

Moreover, the said order also does not state that the Appropriate Authority had reason to believe that it is expedient in the public interest to suspend the registration.

¶18

4 wp 1635.13

¶19

As far as sealing is concerned, the authority as per Sec. 12 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act read with Rules 11 and 12 of the P. C. P. N. D. T. Rules has to state that the said machine would furnish an evidence of commission of an offence under the Act. Perusal of the said panchanama, it does not depict that the authority had reason to believe that the said machine would furnish an evidence of commission of an offence under the Act. I have already held in a case of Dr. Sukhda Muley Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012(6) All M. R. 778 about the reason to belive on the part of the authority.

¶20

In the light of the above, the impugned action and the order cannot be sustained. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C". No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶23

bsb/April 13

Dr. Yogita Pradip Fegde v. the Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Yogita Pradip Fegde v. the Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon and Another

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

Somnath Ramchandra Shiral Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narayan Yadav Tijare Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Premraj Budha Patil Vs Range Foresh Officer and Ors.

Ratna Co-Op. Housing Society Thr Chairman Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Naseem Begum Sk. Afsar and Others Vs Saheb Bi Sk. Jani and Others

Dr. Vandana Prashant Choudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anohter