Allahabad High Court
Dr. Mohit Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 April, 2025
Author: Vipin Chandra Dixit
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50287-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10136 of 2025
Petitioner :- Dr. Mohit Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Utkarsh Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K. Kesarwani, Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following reliefs :-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Appropriate Authority Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (P.C.P.N.D.T.) Meerut as well as order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2, Joint Director, State Appropriate Authority, Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (P.C.P.N.D.T.), Directorate Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Jagat Narayan Road, Lucknow, under the garb of which the respondent no. 3 has arbitrarily rejected the application of the petitioner for registering his name as Radiologist/Sonologist with the Suvidha Diagnostic Centre; 1- Ansarpura, Hapur Road, Meerut, (Annexure No. 1).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents, not to restrain the petitioner from working as sonologist in the Suvidha Diagnostic Centre; 1- Ansarpura, Hapur Road, Meerut.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents, not to take coercive action against the petitioner till pendency of this Writ Petition."
3. Counsel on behalf of petitioner has relied on the judgment of this High Court in the Case of Dr. Sudhir Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Writ -C No. 33226 of 2023, Order dated 09.10.2023), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of North Delhi Multi-Speciality Medical Centre vs. Union of India and Anr. (W.P.(C) 726/2020 and CM APPL. 2138/2020, 13267/2020, Order dated 04.06.2021) and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Anil Wasti & Ors. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (Petition(s) for Special Leave to Apeal (C) No (s). 3058 of 2020 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17.12.2019 in WA No. 612/2019 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh At Bilaspur) to buttress his arguments that since he was a practicing sonologist for over a period of 10 years before 2014, he is entitled to continue with the same. The Supreme Court has directed in the aforesaid judgment that all the States should carry out the competency based examination, however, it is to be noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh is still not organizing this examination for the existing registered medical practitioners.
4. In light of the same, the petitioner is unable to take this examination. The impugned order in the present case is based on the fact that the petitioner is not qualified under the Amended Rule 6(2) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)(Six Months. Training) Rules, 2014. It is to be noted that this disqualification arises because the examination has not been set up by the State of U.P.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
6. In the judgment of Delhi High Court, Justice Prathiba M. Singh has examined the issue in great detail and passed the order in the case of North Delhi Multi-Speciality Medical Centre (supra). Relevant paragraph nos. 19, 20 and 21 are delineated as under :-
"19. During the pandemic, a substantial number of hospitals have been converted into COVID hospitals and establishments. There is a growing need for non-COVID facilities also to provide day-to-day services such as ultrasound etc., Considering the pandemic situation, and the requirement of such centres for various pregnant women who may be necessitated to use its services, as also fact that the said ultrasound machine is located in a fifteen bed nursing home which is currently being run by the Petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the running of the centre ought to be permitted, since the centre has already been run for 5 years. Ld. counsel for GNCTD confirms that no complaints were received while the centre was functioning. Further there is no averment as to when the training period of six months will be initiated by the State, and the Petitioner, during the pandemic situation, cannot be stopped from operating the centre, when the State has itself not initiated the procedure of the training period, as it is required to by the 2014 Rules, as also the direction of the Supreme Court and the Union of India.
20. Accordingly, as an interim measure, the Petitioner is permitted to use the ultrasound machine and run the diagnostic and imaging centre from the premises which has already been licensed since 2014. However, certain documents which have been demanded by the GNCTD, in its Additional Affidavit filed before the court, filed yesterday for the purpose of continuing the license of the nursing home, shall be submitted by the Petitioner with the GNCTD within a period of two weeks. Further, the Petitioner is also directed to maintain a complete record of the use of the ultrasound machine and submit the same to the GNCTD every 30 days. Needless to add that the various terms and conditions in terms of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules thereinunder, shall be complied with by the Petitioner, and no illegality shall be resorted to. This court is conscious of the intent of the PCPNDT Act and the Rules therein, and any illegal activity in terms of the Act, if carried out by the Petitioner, shall be dealt with in a strict manner. This order shall not be used as a precedent, and the permission to run the centre is subject to further orders that may be passed in this writ petition itself. Further, no equities shall be claimed by the Petitioner in view of this order.
21. Accordingly, the question as to whether the Petitioner needs to further undergo six months training or whether she needs to merely take the competency based test, would also be determined after hearing all the parties."
7. In light of the above judgment as well as the guidelines of Supreme Court, it is to be noted that the petitioner cannot be denied the right to run diagnostic and imaging centre solely on the ground that the competency based test has not been cleared by the petitioner.
8. The Government is accordingly directed to carry out the said test expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from date in accordance with law.
9. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.4.2025
sailesh
(Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
