Bombay High Court
Preety Sandeep Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 October, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 10015.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10015 OF 2016
Dr. Preety W/o. Sandeep Suryawanshi,
Age: 32 Years, Occu.: Medical Practioner,
R/o.: Madhura maternity Hospital &
Sonography centre, 5-A, Shivsadan,
Shivaji Colony, Near State Bank of India,
Nandurbar, Dist.: Nandurbar .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Health Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Appropriate Appellate Authority
(Under P. C. & P.N.D.T. Act & Rules, 1996)
National Rural Health Mission,
3rd Floor, Mumbai (M.S.)
3. The Civil Surgeon,
Civil Hospital, Nandurbar,
Dist.: Nandurbar .. Respondents
Shri N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for Respondents.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE : 10 October, 2017
th
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:15:00 :::
2 wp 10015.16
JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties taken up for final hearing.
2. Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel submits that the petitioner
is registered under the provisions of The Pre-conception and Pre-
natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,
1994 [hereinafter referred to as 'PCPNDT Act']. The certificate of
registration under the said act is issued to the petitioner in 2008.
The validity of the said certificate is extended from time to time
and lastly the same is extended up to 31 st October, 2018. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioner maintains the
register and the record about the patients attending sonography
test and has completed all the formalities. Abruptly on 20 th
November, 2014, the respondent No. 2 alongwith the Rapid
Vigilance State Committee inspected the hospital. They
prepared the seizure panchanama, pointed out some deficiencies
in maintaining the record and the 'F' form. Petitioner was given
the show cause notice on 25.11.2014 seeking explanation from
the petitioner as to why the sonagraphy centre licnese should not
be suspended as per Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the PCPNDT
Act. The petitioner replied the said notice. Though the show
cause notice was issued under Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 of the
PCPNDT Act thereby displaying the intention of suspending the
registration of the petitioners licnese under PCPNDT Act. The
appropriate authority cancelled the registration of the petitioner.
3 wp 10015.16
The appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the
PCPNDT Act is dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
3. The learned counsel submits that criminal case is filed
against the petitioner. The petitioner has moved for quashing of
the said complaint and this court has admitted the petition of the
petitioner and has stayed the criminal proceedings. The learned
counsel submits that the order impugned is not in consonance
with the show cause notice as such is unsustainable and deserves
to be set aside. The learned counsel further submits that for
trifle reasons such as 'F' form not properly filled in, the
prosecution even could not have been launched. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 27.9.2016 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1381 of
2015.
4. Mr. Patil, the learned Addl. G. P. submits that the
appropriate authority has the power and jurisdiction to take
congnizance of the illegalities committed even suo-motu. By way
of a caution, show cause notice was issued, explanation was
called from the petitioner. The appropriate authority was not
satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner, even the criminal
prosecution is filed against the petitioner as such the appropriate
authority was within its right to cancel the registration of the
petitioner. Large scale illegalities are found in the record
maintained by the petitioner, the same creates doubt. The order
4 wp 10015.16
passed are legal and valid. The appellate authority has also
considered all the pros and cons and has rightly passed the
order.
5. We have considered the submissions.
6. The purpose of issuance of show cause notice is to bring it
to the notice of the person the shortcomings and the intended
action being sought to be taken pursuant to the show cause
notice. The show cause notice issued is referable to Sub-Section
1 of Section 20 of PCPNDT Act. The said show cause notice is in
a regional language and the part of show cause notice reads thus:
" rjh vki.kkl ;k uksVhl }kjs dGfo.;kr ;srs dh] jkT; n{krk iFkdkus
fnysY;k HksVh njE;ku vk<Gwu vkysY;k =qVh lanHkkZr vkiys lksuksxzkQh lsUVjps uksan.kh
dye 20 ¼1 ½ vUo;s fuyafcr dk dj.;kr ;sm u;s] ;k ckcrpk [kqyklk 7
fnolkaP;k vkr dj.;kr ;kok-"
7. The petitioner was given to understand that if, his reply is
not satisfactory then, his registration of the sonography centre
shall stand suspended. At no point of time the authority while
issuing the show cause notice intended to cancel the registration
of the sonography centre. The order passed travels beyond the
show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was
not given any opportunity on the purported action of cancellation
of registration. The impugned order as is passed beyond the
purview of the show cause notice the same cannot be sustained.
The impugned order would be in transgression of the principles
of natural justice.
5 wp 10015.16
8. In light of the above, the impugned orders cancelling the
registration of the petitioner by the appropriate authority and
the appellate authority are quashed and set aside. The present
order would not be an impediment for the respondent to take
action in accordance with law.
9. Rule Accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[S. M. GAVHANE, J. ] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
marathe/oct.17
