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.
wp1151.15.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1151 OF 2015
Dr. Gopal s/o Moreshwar Battalwar .. PETITIONER
VERSUS Medical officer of Health / Appropriate Authority undertaken PCPNDT Department .. RESPONDENT
Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. M.V.Deshpande, advocate for respondent.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. K. JADHAV JJ. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2015.
PER COURT :
wp1151.15.doc
2
presented to the trial Court. Trial Court directed framing of charge which order is subjected to challenge in Criminal Revision Application No. 49/2014 and this Court. While granting rule in the matter, Court has directed stay of further proceedings pending before the Trial Court. Another report has been presented against petitioner as well as Dr. R. K. Agrawal in respect of commission of offience punishable under the provisions of PCPNDT Act, 1994. Petitioner contends that although charge-sheet is presented, charges have not been framed by the criminal court in the aforesaid matter. Life Line Diagnostic Center through its partners has approached this Court by presenting Writ Petition No. 520/2014 impeaching the action of respondent – appropriate authority of directing suspension of registration and license for sonography center run by petitioner under the name Life Line Diagnostic Center. Writ petition presented by Life Line Diagnostic Center came to be allowed and this Court directed quashment of the order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the appropriate authority and the order dated 09.08.2013 passed by the appropriate authority / medical officer Nanded-Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded. As a consequence of quashment of the order directing suspension registration, on consideration of request of Dr. Agrwal, the appropriate authority restored the certificate of registration in favour of Life Line Diagnostic Center. However, while directing restoration of the certificate of registration, names of Dr. Agrawal and Dr. Patil are only recorded in the certificate whereas name of petitioner has been deleted. Petitioner is objecting to deletion of his name from certificate of registration. According to petitioner, the action of respondent – appropriate authority in directing deletion of his name from the certificate of registration is violative
wp1151.15.doc
3
of the order issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 520/2014. It is further contended that the grievance raised by petitioner in respect of deletion of his name has also not been considered favourably and his request for restoration of his name in the registration certificate has been turned down erroneously.
wp1151.15.doc
4
his name is not liable to be considered. In view of section 20 of the Act, the Appropriate Authority may suo motu, or on complaint, issue notice to the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic to show cause why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the notice. Sub-section 2 of section 20 provides that if, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic and having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee, the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of the provisions of this Act or the rules, it may, without prejudice to any criminal action that it may take against such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic, suspend its registration for such period as it may think fit or cancel its registration, as the case may be. Sub-section 3 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2), if the Appropriate Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the registration of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such notice referred to in sub-section (1).
wp1151.15.doc
5
interference in the matter in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Remedy is provided under section 21 of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, which the petitioner has not availed.
( V.K. JADHAV ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 can be exercised in a matter pending under the PCPNDT Act where alternative statutory remedy under Section 21 is available.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Gopal Battalwar
Medical officer of Health / Appropriate Authority
R.M. BORDE
V. K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
