Quashed

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

Bombay HC7 Mar 2013WP/877/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the suspension of his sonography centre recognition and sealing of equipment by the appropriate authority under the PCPNDT Act. The court held that the action was invalid due to lack of show cause notice and failure to express opinion on public interest required for suspension under Section 20.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order suspending recognition and sealing the machine is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Dr. Nirmal Laxminarayan Agarwal Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.877 OF 2013.

¶7

Dr.Nirmal Laxminarayan Agarwal,
Age 48 years, Occ.Medical
Practitioner, R/o Shubham Hospital,
Station Road, Jalna.

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. State of Maharashtra,
through Department of Health
Service, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.

¶11

2. Appropriate Authority,
through Civil Surveon,
Civil Hospital, Jalna,
Jalna.

¶12

...Respondents.

¶13

Mr.S.S.Bora, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs.Y.M.Kshirsagar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the
Respondents.

¶14

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶15

 Date : 07.03.2013.

¶16

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶18

1.Heard.

¶19

2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.

¶20

3.Vide the present Writ Petition, the
petitioner assails the order suspending the
recognition of the petitioner's sonography centre
under sub-section 3 of Section 20 of the Pre-
conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, so also
sealing the machine U/s 30 of the said Act.

¶21

4.It appears that without issuing any
show cause notice and affording opportunity of
hearing, to the petitioner, the authority
suspended the recognition of the petitioner's
sonography centre. Sub-section 3 of Section 20

¶22

of the said Act is an exception which can be
exercised only if the appropriate authority is of
the opinion that the suspension of the
registration is expedient in the public interest.

¶23

¶24

The order nowhere depicts the said opinion of the
appropriate authority. Only on some irregularity,
the action under sub-section 3 of Section 20 of
the Act has been taken. In normal course, the
procedure as is laid down under sub-sections 1
and 2 of Section 20 of the Act, has to be
adhered. In absence of any satisfaction on the
part of the authority that it is expedient in
public interest to suspend the recognition, sub-
section 3 of Section 20 of the said Act, could
not have been resorted.

¶25

5.So also while sealing the machine, the
authority has nowhere depicted his 'reason to
believe' that the said machine would furnish
evidence of the commission of offence under the
Act. Even the affidavit filed on record does not
state that.

¶26

6.In light of the above, the impugned
action under PCPNDT Act of suspending the
registration and sealing the machine can not be
sustained and is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶27

¶28

7. Rule accordingly made absolute. No

¶29

costs.

¶30

8.The present order would not be an
impediment for the authority to take action in
accordance with the provisions of the statute and

¶31

rules.

¶32

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶33

asp/office/wp87713

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nirmal Laxminarayan Agarwal 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.

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

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

Sangita Nitin Dhakne Vs the State of Mah and Ors.