This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of a nursing home's ultrasound registration and sealing of the machine. The court upheld the appellate authority's finding that the petitioner failed to renew registration under the PC & PNDT Act and violated multiple procedural rules.
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.
WP(C) No. 414 of 2021
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Collector, Sundergarh in Annexure-1 and also consequential order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal Case No.1 of 2019 in Annexure-2 confirming the order passed by the Collector, Sundergarh in Annexure-1.
Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Collector, Sundergarh by order dated 02.11.2018 cancelled the registration of the Nursing Home, viz., Rajasthan Seva Sadan Hospital, Rourkela and sealed the ultrasound machine due to non-filing of application for renewal of registration and intimated to apply at appropriate level for further necessary action. But the petitioner preferred appeal before the State Appellate Authority under PC & PNDT Act, 1994 challenging the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the Collector, Sundergarh, and the appellate authority, having given opportunity of hearing to the parties, vide order dated 15.10.2019, came to hold that action taken by the Collector, Sundergarh is well justified. It is further contended that Dr. B. Joshi, who was looking after the Nursing Home, had some personal difficulty as his wife was expired, therefore the petitioner could not make application within time stipulated for renewal, and that the order of the Collector, Sundergarh has been passed without following the guidelines issued by
the Government and, thereby, the order so passed by the Collector, Sundergarh as well as consequential order passed by the appellate authority cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Mr. J. Katikia, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that the appellate authority, while passing the order impugned confirming the order passed by the Collector, Sundergarh in Annexure-1, has applied its mind and reasons assigned therein are well justified, and as such the order so passed may not be interfered with.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court finds that admittedly the petitioner-Rajasthan Seva Sadan Hospital had been established in Rourkela in the district of Sundergarh having registration No.OR/30/0061/ GCL/2013. An ultrasound machine is installed in the said clinic. Due to non-renewal, the Collector & District Magistrate-cum-DAA PC&PNDT Act, Sundergarh cancelled its registration and sealed the ultrasound machine vide order impugned in Annexure-1 dated 02.11.2018. Against such order, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule 19(2) of PC & PNDT Rule, 1996 and the Multi Member State Appropriate Authority, under PC&PNDT Act, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and perusing the record, came to a definite finding, which reads as under:-
“After going through the submissions made by the parties and perusal of all relevant documents placed by the parties, the Multi member State Appropriate Authority observed the following points:
i) The hospital authorities had not applied for renewal of registration of the ultrasound unit as required under rule 8(1) of PC & PNDT Rule, 1996.
ii) The documents were not maintained in the ultrasound unit of the Rajasthan Seva Sadan Hospital, Rourkela as required under section 29 of PC & PNDT Act, 1994 and rule 9 of PC & PNDT Rule, 1996. iii) As per 17(2) PC & PNDT Rule, 1996 the PC & PNDT Act copy was not available in the ultrasound unit.
iv) The name, designation and signature of the performing doctor had not available in the patient reports.
v) Name and designation had not been displayed on the dress of the performing doctor as per rule 18 (viii) PC & PNDT Rule, 1996.
vi) For violation of the law prosecution report has been filled in the Court of the SDJM, Rourkela against the appellants hospital vide 2 (C) C.C. No.16 of 2019.
As per provisions laid down in section 29 of PC & PNDT Act, 1994 (1) “All records, charts, forms, reports, consent letters and all other documents required to be maintained under this Act and the rules shall be preserved for a period of two years or for such period as may be prescribed:
Provided that, if any criminal or other proceedings are instituted against any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, the records and all other documents of such centre, Laboratory or Clinic shall be preserved till the final disposal of such proceedings.
(2) All such records shall, at all reasonable times, be made available for inspection to the Appropriate Authority or to any other person authorized by the Appropriate Authority in this behalf.”
The Rule 8(1) of the PC & PNDT Rule, 1996 provides that, “an application for renewal of certificate of registration shall be made in duplicate in Form A, to the Appropriate Authority thirty days before the date of expiry of the certificate of registration. Acknowledgment of receipt of such application shall be issued by the Appropriate Authority in the manner specified in sub rule.”
The appellant had not submitted any documents with regards to the absence of the Medical Superintendent in the Rajasthan Seva Sadan Hospital, Rourkela in the month of May to June 2018. The Sub-Collector-cum-Sub-District Appropriate Authority, Panposh and District inspection and monitoring team had inspected the ultrasound unit of the appellant on 25.08.2018. After the inspection of the ultrasound unit of the hospital on 25.08.2019 the Medical Superintendent had applied for renewal of registration of the ultrasound unit on 03.10.2018. The renewal application had not been made as per the provisions under rule 8(1) of and PC & PNDT Rule, 1996.
The Medical Superintendent had made an application in Form-A on 08.11.2018 for registration of the ultrasound unit. The District Appropriate Authority, Sundargarh, vide order dated
22.12.2018 had rejected the application for registration of the ultrasound unit as the appellants hospital has violated the provision of PC & PNDT Act and Rules their under. The rejection of the application in Form-C had been intimated to the Medical Superintendent vide letter No. 2303 dated 27.12.2018 of the Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer, Sundargarh.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India at point No. 33(e) of Judgment dated 8.11.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 349 of 2006 have directed “If there has been violation of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, proper action has to be taken by the authorities under the Act so that the legally inapposite acts are immediately curbed.”
A glimpse over the reasons which have been assigned in order impugned would make it amply clear that the appellate authority, after taking into consideration the factual matrix as well as the law governing the field, has confirmed the order passed by the Collector, Sundergarh in cancelling the registration of the Nursing Home and sealing the ultrasound machine. Thereby, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the appellate authority so far as to cause interference therewith.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
As COVID-19 pandemic situation is continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s official website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
…………….……………
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
GDS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order cancelling the registration of the Nursing Home and sealing the ultrasound machine due to procedural non-compliance can be quashed.
Whether the appellate authority's confirmation of the cancellation order warranting interference by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No. 349 of 2006Referred¶21
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajasthan Seva Sadan Hospital
State of Odisha
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
