The High Court of Bombay set aside the sealing of the petitioner's sonography machine, finding the appropriate authority failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of 'reason to believe' regarding the commission of an offence under the PCPNDT Act.
The impugned action of sealing the sonography machine was set aside and the rule was made absolute.
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 W.P.No.932/13
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.932 OF 2013.
Dr.Alka W/o Anant Gite,
Age 42 years, Occ.Medical
Practitioner, R/o Gite Niwas,
Padmavati Galli, Parli Vaijinath,
Tq.Parli Vaijinath, Dist.Beed. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Department of Public Health
and Family Welfare, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. Naib Tahildar, Parli Vaijnath,
C/o Office of the Tahsildar,
Parli Vaijnath, Taluka and
Dist.Naijnath, Dist.Beed.
3. Appropriate Authority/Civil
Surgeon, Beed, Dist.Beed. ... Respondents.
Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr.V.B.Ghatge, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
2 W.P.No.932/13
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 04.03.2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.Heard.
2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
3.The action U/s 30 of the Pre-conception
and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition
of Sex Selection) Act, read with Rules 11 and 12
of the PCPNDT Rules, is taken against the
petitioner. The sonography machine of the
petitioner is sealed.
4.Mr.Chapalgaonkar,learnedcounsel
submits that the said action is not in consonance
with Section 30 of the said Act and Rules 11 and
12 of the said Rules, inasmuch as the appropriate
authority has not recorded satisfaction about
his 'reason to believe' that the said machine is
being used for the purpose of commission of
offence under the said Act. The learned counsel
3 W.P.No.932/13
further contends that even Criminal case filed
against the petitioner has been quashed by this
Court and no criminal proceedings are pending. In
light of that fact also the action of sealing the
said machine can not be continued.
5.Mr.Ghatge, learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader
submits that the appropriate authority was
satisfied about the acts of commission on the
part of the petitioner and has rightly taken the
action. The provisions of Section 30 and Rules
11 and 12 have been observed. The Respondents
have approached the Apex Court against the order
quashing the complaint and the matter is now
before the Apex Court.
6.In a case of "Dr.Mrs.Sukhada W/o Dilip
Mulay Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others"
W.P.No.6557/2012 dt.11.9.2012, I have already
held about the aspect of 'Reason to believe' on
the part of the appropriate authority. The
action can be taken by the appropriate authority
under the said provisions only if the appropriate
authority is satisfied or has "reason to believe"
4 W.P.No.932/13
that the said machine is being used for the
purpose of the commission of offence under the
said Act. The order sealing the said machine
does not depict such satisfaction i.e.
subjective satisfaction of the authority based
on objective assessment of the facts. Even the
Criminal case filed against the petitioner is
quashed.
7.In light of the above, the impugned
action can not be sustained and is set aside.
8.Needless to state the present order
would not be an impediment for the authorities to
take action in accordance with law.
9.Rule accordingly made absolute in terms
of prayer clause (A).
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp932.13
5 W.P.No.932/13
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sealing of a sonography machine under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act can be sustained where the appropriate authority failed to record a satisfaction of 'reason to believe' required by law.
Whether the sealing of the machine continues to be valid after a criminal case filed against the petitioner has been quashed by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr.Mrs.Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs. The State of Maharashtra and othersReferred¶6
Dr.Mrs.Sukhada W/o Dilip Mulay Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others W.P.No.6557/2012 dt.11.9.2012
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Alka W/o Anant Gite
The State of Maharashtra
Naib Tahildar, Parli Vaijnath
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