Allowed

M/s Parkline Diagnostic Private Limited v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Apr 2022WP/6634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner’s writ petition challenging the rejection of its registration renewal under the PCT Act. The Court set aside the impugned order for violating Rule 8 and Rule 18A and directed remand for fresh consideration after giving a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to respondent to consider application afresh after giving notice and hearing within four weeks.

M/s Parkline Diagnostic Private… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR^{TllE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

l FRIDAY ,THE^{FIRST DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶5

WRIT PET ITION^{NO: 66340F 2022}

¶6

Between:

¶7

lvl/s Parkline^{DiagnostitPrivate Limited, ([egd No 0116A820' lower Ground} Fiooi 3 Jno 4,"ar,r"b"i^{i"wer, so-'Ro"ad' secunderabad' rep' bv its} A,ltnot"eo Signbtory^{Rangisetti SatyaVara Prasad}

...PETlrloNER

AND

The State of^{TelanganJ, rep by its PrincipalSecretary' Medical and Health} Depadment,^{Secretariat' Hyderabad}

¶12

The Commissioner^{of Health and Family Welfare'Hyderabad'}

¶13

The District^{Collector, Hyderabad District At Nampally' Hyderabad'}

¶14

The District^{Medicalanl Heatttrofficer-cum-DistrictAppropriate Authority'} Hyderabad District.

¶15

r ...REsPoNDENTs

¶16

Petition under^{Article226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstancesStatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue un upproprlt"^{Writ, Order or Direction' more particularlyonein} the nature of writ^{of tr/anlamus, to declare the action of the 4th respondent in} and issuing the i.pugneJ^{order bearingRc No} lglPc PNDT/DI,1Ho/HYDl2o21t1i42^{dt., 21t112022rejectingthe applicationsubmitted} for renewal^{of the registrationoflr,4i s Parkline DiagnosticsPrivate Limited, on the} sole^ground of^{penOency of the criminal. case bearing C C'No 2394 of 2020} p""ai"g on the file of^{ilrJ xr Addl.chief MetropolitanlMagistrate,secunderabad,} as being illegal,^{arbitrarV'rnjr.t andu nco n stitutional and consequentlyset aside} the same, and^{to grant}

¶17

IAN O:1 OF²⁰²²

¶18

Petition under^{Section151 CPCPrayingthatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High CourtmaY be Pleased to dlrect} the respondent^{authorities hereinto forthwithrenew the registrationcertificate of} the^{petitioner'sDiagnostic Centre, bY susPendingthe imPugnedProcsRc.No} t202111092 dt.^{21-1-2 022,pendingdisPosalof the} 1g/PC&PNDT^/DMHO/HYD main Writ Petition.

¶19

lA NO: 2 oF 2022

¶20

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^p raying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in suPPort} of the^petition, the^{High Court maY be} Pleased^to receive the coPY^{of the Judg} ent^passed by Special^{Civil ApplicationNo. 20316 of} 2017 on the file of the^High ourt of G ujarat^{at Ahmedabad as additionalmaterial} document, in the^{interest of j} stice.

¶22

Counsel for the^Petitioner: /S. G JAYA REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the ResPonde Nos. 1,2 & 4: GP FOR^{MEDICAL & HEALTH} Counsel for the^{ResPondenNo.3:GP FOR REVENUE}

¶24

The Court made^{the followi} g

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY} WIIIT PETITIO N No.6634 of²⁰²²

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for^{petitionerand learned} Government Pleader for^{Medical, Health and FamilyWelfare} appearing on behalf of^{the respondents.With their consent, the} present Writ Petition is^{beingdisposed of at the admission} stage itself.

¶28

Questiouing^{the action of the respondent No.4 - District} Medical and Health Officer-cum-District^Appropriate Authority, Hyderabad,^{ir-r passing the impugnedorder dated} 21 .01.2022 rejecting the application^{madeby the petitioner for} renewal of registration on^{the sole ground of pendency of} C.C.No.2394 of 2020^{on the fite of XI Additional Chief} ln'letropolitan Magistrate,^{Secunderabad, the petitionerhas} filed the present Writ^Petition.

¶29

Leanred counsel^{for the petitioner has stated that the} impugned order^{passed by the respondent No'4is contrary to}

¶30

¶31

¶32

2 {ll, J w.P.No.663'1^{of 2022}

¶33

the Pre-Conception^{and Pre-natalDiagnosticTechniques} (Prohibition of Sex^{Selection) Act,1994and the Rules' 1996'} more specificaily,^{Rule 8 thereof'The learned counsel has} drawn the^{attention of this Court to the Rule 8 of the Rules'} which states^{that on an applicationfor renewal of certificate of} registration,^{the appropriate authorityshall after holding an} enquiry^{and satisfying itself that the applicantlias cor.nplied} with all the^{requirements of the Act and the Rules n-rade} thereunder^{and having regard to the advice of the Advisory} Committee,^{renew the certificateof registration'as specifiedin} Form-B, for^{a further periodof five (5) years from the date of} expiry ofcertificate^{ofregistrationearlier granted'Further' it is} stated that in^{casethe authority seeksto reject the application,} due opportunity^{of beingheard shall be given to the applicant} and thereafter,^{for reasons to be recorded in rvriting, the} authority concerned^{may reject the application'Bttt, in this} particular case,^{the application ofthe petitionerfor renewal of} Registration Certificate^{has beenrejectedsolely on the ground}

¶34

¶35

AAR, J W P.No 6634 of 202,

¶36

of pendency of C.C.No.2394 of 2020 against the petitioner, which cannot be sustained. The leamed counsel has relied on the.judgmenl of l-ligh Court olBornbay in Dr. Minal Shelke v. Medical Officer & Appropriate authorityr and contended that even though a criminal case is pending, under Rule 18A(4)(ii) of the Rules, the application for rener,val of registration cannot be re.jected rvithout gii,ing an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

¶37

A pemsal of the Rules, lrore specifically, Rule

¶38

l8(AX4)(ii) of the Rules reads as under':

¶39

"1ii) ensnre that no application for fresh registration or renewal of registration is accepted if any case is pending in any Court against the applicant for violation of any provision of the Act and the rules made thereunder."

¶40

Rule 18A of the Rules was inserted bv GSR 119(E) dated 24.02.2014 (with effect from 26.02.2014) and sub-rule :l(ii) rvas substituted vide G.S.R.60(E) dated 28.01.2015 (u,ith ellcct fi orn 18.0 1 .l0 l 5).

¶41

' 201⁷ scc onlinc Bom 221

¶42

¶43

r\AR, J w.P.No.6634 of 2022

¶44

tr-

¶45

But, a reading of Rule 8(3) of the Rules clearly states that when the authority concerned wants to reject the application for renewal of certificate of registratior.r, the authority concerned has to necessarill, put the applicant on notice and give an oppoftunity olhearing.

¶46

This Court as well as the Flon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases held that providing an opportLrnity of being heard before passing any order against the person concerned is one ofthe basic principles ofnatural justice and equit;.

¶47

Admittedly, in the present case, as seen from the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before rejection of its application for renewal of registration.

¶48

Under similar circumstances, High Cor-rrt ol Bontbav in Dr. NIinal Shelke ( I supra) has held as Lrndcr:

¶49

"lt is clear frorl the above refered observations that the cotnperent authority can receive applications for registration and renewal of registration in spite of pendency of criminal case or lodging of First \ \

¶50

¶51

rlAR J w.P No 663i oi 2022

¶52

¶53

I I J

¶54

Infbrrnation lLeport against the concerned doctor or the clinic, This being the case. I anr of the view that the competent authority should have applied its rnind to the lacts of the case, accepted the applications and then should have proceeded to consider the applications in accordance with the rules. Even upon perusal of the criminal complaint being RCC No.l6912010, prima facie, it appears that only vague allegations of commission of certain irregularities in keeping record in proper form have been made and, in so lar as oflences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act are concerned, rro specific allegatior regarding commission of certain acts prohibited under these sections lrave been made in the cornplaint. This is a materiai aspect of the case which needs to be considered appropriately by the competent authority."

¶55

Having regard to the above, tliis Writ Petition is alloived bi, setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded bac[< to the respondent No.4 for fi'esh consideration. 'fhe respor-rdent No.4 is directed to cor-rsider the application of the petitioner afresh duly putting the petitioner on notice and giving the petitioner an oppoftunity of hearing and then, pass an order strictly in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

,d{R. J

w P.No.663a or 2022