Dismissed

Dr Subodh Bage v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC26 Feb 2021WPC/980/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the suspension of his ultrasound clinic registration and unsealing order via writ, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 21(ii) of the PNDT Act before the Additional Chief Secretary. A one-month timeline for the appellate authority to decide on merits was set.

What did the court decide?

Matter dismissed; petitioner directed to file appeal under Section 21(ii) of PNDT Act; appellate authority directed to decide within one month.

Dr Subodh Bage Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 980 of 2020

¶2

Dr. Subodh Bage ..... … Petitioner

¶3

Versus

¶4

The State of Jharkhand

¶5

The Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

¶6

The Civil Surgeon, Koderma

¶7

…. …. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner :- Mr. Hardeo Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondents :- Mr. Rahul Saboo, S.C.-I

¶8

Order No. 05 Dated: 26.02.2021

¶9

The present case is taken up today through Video conferencing.

¶10

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing minutes of meeting of District Advisory Committee (PC & PNDT), Koderma contained in memo no. 150 dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Civil Surgeon, Koderma (the respondent no. 3) and the order contained in memo no. 177 dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the said respondent suspending the registration of Bage Ultrasound Clinic, Rajgarhia road, Jhumri Telaiya, Koderma of which the petitioner is the proprietor. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2- the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma to remove the seal of the aforesaid ultrasound clinic as the same has not been removed by the said respondent in spite of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.

¶11

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶12

4. So far as the prayer with regard to suspension of registration of Bage Ultrasound Clinic, Koderma is concerned, the Court is of the view that the petitioner has the efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring appeal under Section 21(ii) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short, “the Act, 1994”). Notification No.9/RCH-183/12-290(HSN) dated 22.08.2017 has been issued by the State Government whereby power of the appellate authority under the said provision of the Act, 1994 has been conferred to the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical-Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 18.02.2021 filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶13

5. So far as other prayer of the petitioner regarding un-sealing of the

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

said ultrasound clinic despite the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, is concerned, the petitioner may take appropriate recourse under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

¶16

6. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petitioner’s prayers made in the present writ petition at this stage. The same is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner may take appropriate statutory recourse against the aforesaid impugned action of the respondents as permissible under law.

¶17

7. If the petitioner prefers appeal under Section 21(ii) of the Act, 1994 against the impugned order(s) before the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Medical-Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, the said appellate authority shall entertain the appeal on merit and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the said appeal.

¶18

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶19

Ritesh/-

Dr Subodh Bage v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Subodh Bage v. the State of Jharkhand

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

S G Projects Ltd. through Its Director Ajay Singh Vs Jharkhand State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director

Ashwani Poddar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lal Abhay Nath Sahdeo Alias Lal Abhay Nath Shahdeo Vs the State of Jharkhand

Janakraj Kuar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Dy Commissioner

Manish Construction Through Its Partner Mahesh Kumar Vs Rural Dev Dept

Narayan Prasad Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand