“38. In the facts of the present case, it does not appear that the appropriate authority has taken decision having regard to the advice of the advisory committee nor has extended an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as contemplated by sub-rule (3) of the Rule 8 of the Rules. There are no reasons recorded by the appropriate authority while rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner for renewal of registration. The sole ground, disclosed from the statement recorded in the order, that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, is, in the opinion of this court not a valid ground for refusal to grant renewal of certificate of registration of a third party applicant. The impugned rule - to the extent it bars consideration and grant of registration to an applicant (for registration as a genetic counseling centre, genetic clinic or genetic laboratory). If the petitioner were to apply for registration of his clinic, or centre or laboratory , undoubtedly, the appropriate authority would be within its rights to refuse registration. That, however, is not the case here. The petitioner however, did not apply; others did. Their applications were rejected on the ground that a case against the petitioner was pending. Now, the rule does not authorize this course of action.
