Allahabad High Court
Ramganj Diagnostic Center Thru. Its ... vs State Appellate Authority, ... on 11 November, 2024
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74133
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9519 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramganj Diagnostic Center Thru. Its Owner Devi Prasad Tiwari And Another
Respondent :- State Appellate Authority, P.C.P.N.D.T. Act Thru. Chairman,Director General Family Welfare And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narain Srivastava,Pawan Kumar Verma,Shailendra Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.10.2024 passed in Appeal No.116 of 2024 as well as the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Amethi.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is running an Ultrasound Centre at Amethi after obtaining due registration. He has stated that after an inspection carried on 01.09.2023, a seizure order came to be passed mainly on the ground that by running the Centre, the provision of PCPNDT Act 1994 and the Rules were not being followed. A show cause notice was also issued on 05.09.2023. The petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice upon which an order dated 25.09.2023 came to be passed without even providing an opportunity as specified under section 20(2) of the said Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order being Appeal No.96 of 2023 under Rule 19 read with Section 21 of the said Act.
4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that on the same allegations, other Ultrasound Centres had preferred an appeal being Appeal No.105 of 2023 and 110 of 2023 and both the appeals were heard together and written arguments were filed in both the said appeals, copies of the written arguments are on record.
5. One of the argument raised in the written argument, in the appeal filed by the petitioner was that there was no compliance of the Rules 12 of the 1996 Rules. A similar argument was raised in the appeal no.105 of 2023 and 110 of 2023 also. The same appellate authority allowed the Appeal No.105 of 2023 and 110 of 2023 mainly on the ground that the procedure prescribed under Section 30 of the Act read with Rule 12 was not followed, however, despite there being a specific argument to that effect in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing the appeal.
6. In sum and substance, it is argued that two separate and distinct orders have been passed by the same appellate authority taking a different view on the similar grounds.
7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that specific argument of the petitioner in respect of violation of Rule 12 has not even been considered while passing the impugned order. Thus, on that ground alone, the impugned judgment/order dated 10.10.2024 is quashed. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order.
8. While passing the fresh order, the appellate authority shall consider the arguments with regard to violation of Rule 12 of the said Rules and Section 30 of the Act and shall also take into consideration the judgement dated 10.10.2024 passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.105 of 2023 and 110 of 2023. The appellate authority shall pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before the appellate authority.
9. The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
VNP/-
