Quashed

Dr. Ashutosh Jayant Kelkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2013WP/770/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension of sonography center registration and sealing of machines under PCPNDT Act. Court quashed suspension order citing failure to record public interest reasons under exception clause, directing plea regarding sealing to judicial magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order suspending registration of sonography centre quashed and set aside.

Dr. Ashutosh Jayant Kelkar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1 wp 770.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2013

¶4

Dr. Ashutosh S/o Jayant Kelkar, Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Medical Practitioner, R/o Kelkar Hospital, Opp. T. V. Centre, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶7

Appropriate Authority, Dr. Devrishi Ghoshal, Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, Varangaon, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.

¶8

Appropriate Authority/Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. .. Respondents

¶9

Shri S. G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. Y. M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 14TH FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶11

2 wp 770.13

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner challenges the action suspending the registration, so also sealing of the sonography machines.

¶15

It is submitted that the criminal case is already filed against the petitioner and the petitioner has remedy to approach the Judicial Magistrate First Class for getting the sonography machines back and for removal of seal. In the light of that, the present writ petition is considered only to the extent of suspension of the registration. The petitioner may assail the action of the respondents sealing the sonography machine and for release of it before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class when the criminal case is pending.

¶16

It is not disputed that the registration of the petitioner's sonography centre has been suspended even without issuing show cause notice.

¶17

In the affidavit in reply it is tried to be contended that the action has been taken under Sub Sec. 3 of Section 20 of the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of

¶18

3 wp 770.13

¶19

Sex Selection) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as to the "P.C.P.N.D.T. Act" for the sake of brevity).

¶20

The scheme of section 20 envisages issuance of show cause notice, procuring a reply to the show cause notice, after the reply is given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter submission to the advisory committee. After following the aforesaid procedure the Appropriate Authority has the power to either suspend or cancel the registration. An exception is carved out by virtue of Sub Section 3 of Sec. 20 of the P. C. P. N. D. T. Act wherein Appropriate Authority is allowed to suspend the registration of sonography centre without issuing show cause notice. The said provision is by way of an exception and that too if for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Appropriate Authority finds it expedient to suspend the registration in the public interest.

¶21

In the present case, the inspection was done on 01.04.2012 and some irregularities were found in non maintenance of proper form or that the signature of the doctor is not appearing on the particular form. In the said order of suspension of registration it is nowhere stated that the Appropriate Authority was satisfied that in the public interest it is expedient to suspend the registration of the petitioner's sonography centre, nor in the said

¶22

4 wp 770.13

¶23

order the Appropriate Authority has even suggested that the petitioner is indulging in any act prohibited by the P. C. P. N. D. T. Act.

¶24

I have considered the scheme of the P. C. P. N. D. T. Act and the contingencies and circumstances under which Sub Section 3 of Sec. 20 of the Act could have been invoked. So also necessity to adhere to the provisions of Sub Sec. 1 and 2 of Sec. 20 of the P. C. P. N. D. T. Act in a case of Sukhada Mulay Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 6557 of 2012 decided on 11th September, 2012.

¶25

In the light of the above the impugned order to the extent of suspension of registration of sonography centre of the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The petitioner may agitate before the appropriate forum about his grievance regarding sealing of his sonography machine. All points in respect of sealing of machines are kept open.

¶26

Rule is made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶29

bsb/Feb. 13

Dr. Ashutosh Jayant Kelkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ashutosh Jayant Kelkar v. the State of Mah 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

National Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Snehal Yeshwant Dhande and Ors.

Vinayak Engineering Works Vs the Tina Oil and Chemicals Ltd. Co. and Anr.

Pandhari Khandu Bhadange and Ors. Vs Sandipan Vithalrao Surwase

Raosaheb Shamrao Pawar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W Jalgaon

Sadashiv Uttam Walekar and Ors. Vs Sambhaji Babasaheb Maind and Anr.

Swarupaben Madhavdas Saha and Ors. Vs Subhash Shankar Patil and Anr.