Petitioner challenged the sealing of her sonography machine by respondents. Court held sealing was illegal as authorities failed to show machine would furnish evidence of an offence under Section 30 of PCPNDT Act. Order set aside.
Sealing order set aside; Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause 'A'.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Writ Petition No.870 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.870 OF 2013
Dr.Sangita w/o.Nitin Dhakne, Age-45 years, Occu-Medical Practitioner, R/o.Ganesh Par, Parli Vaijinath, Tq.Parli Vaijinath, District Beed PETITIONER
VERSUS
(Alleged Appropriate Authority appointed Sec.17 of P.C.P.N.D.T. Act, 2003)
Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned A.G.P. for respondent/State.
( CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
DATE : 07/03/2013
2
Writ Petition No.870 of 2013
ORAL JUDGMENT :
3 Writ Petition No.870 of 2013
( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)
khs/MARCH 2013/wp870-13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sealing the sonography machine was legally justified without establishing it would furnish evidence of an offence.
Whether the authorities satisfied the mandatory conditions under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act and Rules 11 and 12 before sealing the machine.
Whether the pending criminal case is affected by the setting aside of the sealing order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr.Sangita w/o.Nitin Dhakne
The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare
Shrirang Maruti Mundhe
Appropriate Authority/Civil Surgeon, Beed
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
