High Court of Madras dismissed a writ petition seeking release of a confiscated ultrasound machine based on pre-2011 rules. The court held that post-2011 amendment mandates confiscation and further action under Section 23, precluding penalty-based release.
Writ Petition dismissed with no costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.09.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
W.P. No. 7959 of 2018
Dr. Kopperumdevi ... Petitioner
-vs-
The Appropriate Authority, For Sub District Under Pre-Conception & Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994 The Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the Respondent and in Na.Ka.No.915/211/2017 dated 05.09.2017 and quash the same and consequently, to direct the Respondent to grant license to the petitioner in accordance with Rule 10 of the Amended Rules under the PCPNDT Act.
For Petitioner : Mr. G. Surya Narayanan
For Respondent : Mr. R. Venkatesh, Government Advocate
O R D E R
Heard Mr. G. Surya Narayanan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. Venkatesh, Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.
“(2) The Appropriate Authority or the officer authorized by it may seal and seize any ultrasound machine, scanner or any other equipment, capable of detecting sex of foetus, used by any organisation if the organization has not got itself registered under the Act. These machines of the organizations may be released if such organisation pays penalty equal to five times of the registration fee to the Appropriate Authority concerned and gives an undertaking that it shall not undertake detection of sex of foetus or selection of sex before or after conception.” (emphasis supplied on the underlining)
It is brought to the notice by the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent that the aforesaid rule has been subsequently amended further by the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Amendment Rules, 2011, which had come into force with effect from 31.05.2011, and reads as follows:-
"(2) The Appropriate Authority or the officer authorised by it may seal and seize any ultrasound machine, scanner or any other equipment, capable of detecting sex of foetus, used by any organisation, if the organisation has not got itself registered under the Act. These machines of such organisations shall be confiscated and further action shall be taken as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Act.” (emphasis supplied on the underlining)
It is not in dispute that the machine of the Petitioner in this case had been confiscated on 21.07.2016, which is obviously after the aforesaid change in the legal position.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Appropriate Authority, For Sub District Under Pre-Conception & Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (Central Act) No.57 of 1994 The Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District.
+1cc to Mr.Surya Narayanan, Advocate Sr.78570
W.P. No. 7959 of 2018
rsk[co] srg 31/10/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can avail the benefit of machine release by paying penalty under the 1996 Rules when confiscation occurred after the 2011 Amendment.
Whether an ultrasound machine seized post-2011 amendment must be confiscated under Section 23 of the PCPNDT Act rather than released.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Kopperumdevi
The Appropriate Authority, For Sub District Under Pre-Conception & Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (Central Act) No.57
The Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District
P.D. Audikesavalu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
