Omr Priya Diagnostic Centre Private Limited, Vs The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services

¶1

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶6

OMR Priya Diagnostic Centre Private Limited, Represented by its Director, Mrs.K.Ratna Priya, No.82A,1st Main Road,Raju Nagar, Okkium,thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

Vs

¶9

The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, 3rd Floor,108 Block, DMS Campus,Anna salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006.

¶10

The Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, 3rd Floor,108 Block, DMS Campus,Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 006

¶11

The Joint Registrar, Rural and Health Medical Services, Chengalpattu.

¶12

Tamil Nadu Medical Council, No.959 and 960 Poonamallee High road,Purasaiwakkam,chennai 600 084.

¶13

Priya Diagnostics and Ultra Sound Centre Private Limited, Rep by its Managing Director Ms.Vanaja Kaliraj,No.29,1st Avenue,Sasthri Nagar,Adyar,Chennai 600 020

¶14

__________ Page1 of 9

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶17

Mrs.Vanaja Kaliraj, Managing Director of Priya Diagnostics and Ultra Sound Centre Private Limited, W/o.Perumal Kaliraj, No.5/7,Devinarayan Sai Sagar Apartments, 2nd Floor,Jayaram avenue, Shastri Nagar,Adyar, Chennai 600 020

¶18

Thiru.Kaliraj, Managing Director of Priya Diagnostics and Ultra Sound Centre Private Limited, W/o.Perumal Kaliraj, No.5/7,Devinarayan Sai Sagar Apartments, 2nd Floor,Jayaram avenue, Shastri Nagar,Adyar, Chennai 600 020

¶19

Mr.K.Shiva Prashanth,

¶20

Director of Priya Diagnostics and Ultra Sound Centre Private Limited, S/o.Perumal Kaliraj, No.5/7,Devinarayan Sai Sagar Apartments, 2nd Floor,Jayaram avenue, Shastri Nagar,Adyar, Chennai 600 020

¶21

Dr.Amalraj Sindhuja, Reg No.100334, D/o.Mr.Amalraj, Villa 94,Casagrand Pallagio, Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 097

¶22

10.Dr.Alex Daniel, Reg No.75304, Head of Department,Radiology Department, Chettinad Hospital,Rajiv Gandhi Salai OMR,Kelambakkam.

¶23

11.Dr.Lavanya Gunasekaran, Reg No.110165, Supreme Specialty Hospital,

¶24

__________ Page2 of 9

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶27

1/56,OMR Road, Padur,Chennai 603103

¶28

12.Dr.Amudhan R A-5,Krishna Thulasi Apartments, No.6,Arcot Street, T.Nagar,Chennai 600 017

¶29

..Respondent(s)

¶30

Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st,2nd and 3rd Respondents to take Legal action against the 5th to 8th Respondents and every other person, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the 5th Respondents, for contravention of the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)Act 1994,and further direct the 1st to 4th Respondents to take disciplinary action against 6th to 12th Respondents for commission of professional misconduct and for performing ultrasound procedures and such other medical test and techniques in contravention of the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)Act,1994,in accordance with the Medical council regulations and applicable laws.

¶31

For Petitioner(s):	Mrs.Inthu Karunakaran
For Respondent(s):	Mr.K.Tippu sulthan GA RR1 to 3
	Mr.U.Bharanidharan, SGP R4
	Mr.M.Vijayan
	for M/s.Kings and Partridge RR5 to 12

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 1st,2nd and 3rd

¶34

Respondents to take Legal action against the 5th to 8th Respondents and every

¶35

Page3 of 9

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶38

other person, in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the 5th Respondents, for contravention of the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)Act 1994,and further direct the 1st to 4th Respondents to take disciplinary action against 6th to 12th Respondents for commission of professional misconduct and for performing ultrasound procedures and such other medical test and techniques in contravention of the provisions of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)Act,1994,in accordance with the Medical council regulations and applicable laws.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner company was started by one Ratna Priya at Thoraipakkam, Chennai in the year 2016. As the 5^th to 8^th respondents misused the petitioner’s license in violation of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 1994 (PCPNDT Act) and Rules, for which, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.23023 of 2023 to restrain the 5^th and 9^th respondents from misusing the petitioner’s license and to initiate penal action against the 5^th and 9^th respondents for unlawfully performing Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques without possessing valid license. This Court vide order dated 29.07.2025, directed the respondents 2 & 3 to enquire as to whether the respondents 5 and 9 are running the diagnostic centres at Thoraipakkam, Kottivakkam and Kelambakkam with proper license and whether the license issued to the

¶40

Page4 of 9

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶43

petitioner is misused by the 5^th and 9^th respondents to run the said diagnostic centres. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent conducted inspection and detailed enquiry. Based on which, a preliminary report dated 13.01.2026

¶44

has been filed, which clearly established that the petitioner’s license is wilfully misused by the 5^th respondent and ultrasound procedures are conducted by the Doctors, who does not have valid endorsement under the PCPNDT Act. Further, the second respondent has filed a final report on 20.03.2026 wherein it is stated that the 5^th respondent is unlawfully utilized the petitioner’s license. Hence, the petitioner made a representation on 27.03.2026 to the 4^th respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 5 to 12 without valid endorsement under PCPNDT Act and the same is not considered. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court may direct the official respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders within the stipulated time as fixed by this Court.

¶46

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 12 submitted that admittedly, the petitioner Diagnostic Centre and the 5^th respondent Diagnostic Centre were started by the 6^th respondent viz., Vanaja Kaliraj, mother of the deponent/petitioner herein, to be owned by the deponent. The deponent owned a 70% share in the petitioner company and a 30% share in the

¶47

Page5 of 9

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶50

5^th respondent company. Due to a family dispute between the deponent and the private respondents alleging that the 5^th respondent Diagnostic Centre is running without a license, which is unsustainable. There is no business activity in the petitioner company and it is only a paper company, for which reason, the petitioner made false allegations against the private respondents. Hence, this Court may direct the second respondent to conduct enquiry against the petitioner company and pass appropriate orders.

¶51

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records.

¶52

The main dispute was whether the petitioner company and the 5^th respondent company had valid license under the PCPNDT Act. This is a factual issue requiring verification of records. Therefore, this Court is inclined to verify the same by the proper authority.

¶53

In view of the above, this Court directs the second respondent to conduct enquiry into the petitioner company as well as the 5^th respondent company as to whether they have obtained a valid license under PCPNDT Act. If either company lacks a valid license, the second respondent is directed to close the company which does not have a valid license until it obtains a license. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶54

__________ Page6 of 9

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

WP No. 14989 of 2026

¶57