Allowed

Dr. Ramesh Khushalchand Badjatya v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2013WP/85/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an order suspending the registration of a sonography centre and sealing its machine. The High Court held that the Appropriate Authority failed to follow mandatory procedural steps, including issuing a show cause notice and demonstrating subjective satisfaction, under the relevant Act. Consequently, the impugned action was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned action of suspending registration and sealing the machine was set aside, and the rule was made absolute.

Dr. Ramesh Khushalchand Badjatya Vs the State of Mah and… — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Writ Petition No.85 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.85 OF 2013

¶5

Dr.Ramesh S/o.Khushalchand Badjatya, Age-55 years, Occu-Medical Practitioner, R/o.Raja Bazar, Opp.to Jain Mandir, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra,

¶9

Through its Secretary, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

The Appropriate Authority, Medical Officer, Under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr.P.F.Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned A.G.P. for respondent/State. Mr.A.M.Karad, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶12

( CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶13

DATE : 07/03/2013

¶14

¶15

Writ Petition No.85 of 2013

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsels for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶18

The registration of the petitioner’s sonography centre has been suspended vide order dated 07/06/2012. The machine is also sealed on the said date.

¶19

Mr.Patni, the learned counsel submits that prior to suspending the registration, no show cause notice was even issued. So also the machine has been sealed without the authority arriving at subjective satisfaction that the said machine would furnish the evidence of commission of offence under the Act.

¶20

Mr.Karad, the learned counsel submits that it is a case of repetitive act. Earlier also, the petitioner was found indulging in such acts and was imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- This is the second time, the said illegality is committed by the petitioner. The petitioner is indulging in the commission of the illegal acts. The criminal case is also filed against the petitioner and the same is pending. According to the learned counsel, the order passed is legal and proper.

¶21

The appropriate authority has suspended the registration of the petitioner’s sonography centre without issuing any show cause notice. Sub section 1 and 2 of Section 20 of the P.C.P.N.D.T. Act

¶22

3 Writ Petition No.85 of 2013

¶23

requires an issuance of show cause notice. Thereafter an opportunity of hearing and the report from the Advisory Committee before action of suspending or cancelling the registration is taken. An exception is carved out by way of sub section 3 of section 20 of the said Act, wherein if the authority finds that it is expedient in public interest to suspend the registration, it can do so. In the present case, the order does not depict the satisfaction nor narrates about it. Such an order, being not in conformity with any of the sub section of section 20 of The P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, can not be sustained. As far as sealing of the machine is concerned, Section 30 of the said Act, Rules 11 and 12 authorizes the appropriate authority or any Officer authorized on that behalf to seal the machine if the authority has reason to believe that the same may furnish evidence of commission of an offence under the Act. On perusal of the order of sealing, the said aspect does not appear.

¶24

In light of the above, the impugned action can not be sustained and is set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause B and B-1.

¶25

As far as the criminal case is concerned, the same is an independent proceeding. The present order would not have any effect on the said criminal proceeding as the present order is passed on account of the non observance of the procedure. The Court dealing with the said criminal case, would decide the said criminal case on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and on its own merits.

¶26

¶27

Writ Petition No.85 of 2013

¶28

This order would also not be an impediment for the authorities to take action in accordance with the provisions of Statute and Rules.

¶29

( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶30

khs/MARCH 2013/wp85-13

Dr. Ramesh Khushalchand Badjatya v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ramesh Khushalchand Badjatya v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Shaikh Fattu Shaikh Nasir and Ors. Vs the Additional Commissioner, Abad Div and Ors.

The President, Indira Shikshan Prasarak Mahila Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Tukaram Narayan Bodake(Reddy) Vs Vijaymala Prabhakar Kulkarni and Ors.

Swami Vivekanand Shikshak Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sangita Nitin Dhakne Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dr. Nirmal Laxminarayan Agarwal Vs the State of Mah and Anr.