Delhi High Court
M/S Dr. Randhawa Ultrasonogaphy ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 February, 2018
$~4
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 09.02.2018
+ W.P.(C)No.612/2018 & CM No.2685/2018
M/S DR. RANDHAWA ULTRASONOGAPHY IMAGING
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (THROUGH DR J S
RANDHAWA) AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. Khowaja Siddiqui,
Mr. Ashwini Kumar and
Mr. Arup Sinha, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondents
Through : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv. for
R-1.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi,
ASC, GNCTD for R-2 to 4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
1. On the last date i.e., 22.1.2018, I had issued notice in the
matter and zeroed down on the issue pertaining to jurisdiction of
the authority which had passed the impugned order. The relevant
aspects pertaining, inter alia, to jurisdiction as adverted to therein
read as follows:
"This petition seeks to challenge the show-cause
notice dated 22nd December, 2017 and suspension order
of even date. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioner(s) is that both the show-cause notice and the
impugned order has been issued by an authority which is
not the appropriate authority. A perusal of the show-
cause notice (Annexure-P1) reveals that it has been
issued by the District Appropriate Authority, West
District. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my
attention to the e-mail dated 30th November, 2016
whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that in his
case the appropriate authority as from that date would be
the South West District Authority. In support of this
submission, learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that all requisite documentary filings have been
made thereafter with the South West District.
Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner(s) is that the entire proceeding is without
jurisdiction. This apart, counsel for the petitioner says
that the main charge against the petitioner is that it
cannot run a training centre. According to the counsel
for the petitioner there is no prohibition under the Pre-
Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act,
1994 in running a centre for imparting training to Doctors
in Ultrasonography/ Imaging. The petitioners counsel
also refutes the observation made in the impugned order
that Ultrasonography/ Imaging was being conducted on
patients. It is his submission that the CCTV footage
would show that this observation is factually wrong. The
counsel says that the concerned authorities during the
course of the raid carried out at the petitioners premises
took away the CCTV camera, its footage as well as the
DVRs."
2. Notice in this petition was accepted by Mr. Santosh Kumar
Tripathi, on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4.
2.1 Today, on return of notice a status report has been filed on
behalf of the respondents.
2.2 The broad defence that has been taken by the respondents is
that the District Appropriate Authority (West District) (hereafter
referred to "West District Authority") had the necessary
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the report submitted by the
inspection team, and thereafter, pass the impugned order. The
status report avers that the inspection team had three constituents:
National Inspection and Monitoring Committee; State Inspection
and Monitoring Committee; and the District Inspection and
Monitoring Committee.
2.3 It is further averred that the inspection team was constituted
on 21.12.2017. In the status report, reference has been made in
paragraph 5 to the discrepancies found by the inspection team at
the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Centre (in
short "Centre") run by the petitioners.
2.4 In support of the contention that the appropriate authority
qua the petitioners was the West District Authority, a photocopy of
the download from District Delhi website has been appended to the
writ petition as Annexure-1. Based on this download, it is
submitted that the petitioners centre is situate in "Choti Sabji
Mandi", which falls within the jurisdiction of the West District
Authority.
3. As noted in the order dated 22.01.2018, the contention of the
petitioners is that they were at the given point in time when the
inspection was conducted under the jurisdiction of the South-West
District Authority and not West-District Authority.
3.1 In other words, according to the petitioners, the appropriate
authority which could have passed the impugned order was the
South-West District Authority. In support of this contention,
learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the provisions of
Section 17 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic
Techniques Act, 1994 (in short "the Act") to contend that the
consecration of an authority as the appropriate authority is a
solemn act which requires issuance of a notification, followed by
identification of centres/ entities over which they hold sway.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, relies upon the list
of centres, which included the petitioners' centre that were
transferred from West District to South-West District. Based on
the said list, the petitioners contend their centre falls under the
jurisdiction South-West District Authority.
4.1 Furthermore, as noted in the order dated 22.1.2018, the
petitioners also rely upon an e-mail dated 30.11.2016 in support of
their contention, that insofar as the petitioners centre was
concerned, it was transferred from West District to South-West
District by the respondent No.2 to 4 under intimation to them.
4.2 Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
consistent with this intimation, all statutory filings were made with
the CDMO (South-West District); the documents so filed are
appended at pages 291 to 444.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners
that after 30.11.2016, no filing has been made with the West
District Authority. Furthermore, it is contended that at no point of
time did the respondents ever object that statutory filings were
being made with the wrong District Authority and that, instead, the
filings had to be made with the West District Authority.
6. I have asked Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent
nos.2 to 4 as to whether there was any dispute with regard to the
communication sent to the petitioners via e-mail dated 30.11.2016
or with regard to the list of centres appended to the writ petition,
which was indicative of the fact that amongst others the petitioners
centre was also transferred from West District to the South-West
District.
6.1 Mr. Tripathi says that there is no such specific denial and/or
stand taken in the status report.
6.2 Learned counsel, though, vehemently submits that the
appropriate authority for the petitioners is the West District
Authority.
7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record. It is obvious that even though the petitioners did file a
reply dated 5.1.2018 to show cause notice dated 22.12.2017, the
objection taken vis-a-vis jurisdiction has not been decided as yet.
As a matter of fact, on the very same day, as noticed above, the
impugned order was passed (i.e., on 22.12.2017) suspending with
immediate effect in public interest the activity carried out at the
centre.
8. To my mind, the appropriate authority cannot confer upon itself
jurisdiction which is not vested in it. Each District Authority has
been vested with jurisdiction over a particular geographical area.
Furthermore, it appears that centres over which a particular District
Authority has sway and/or jurisdiction stand identified by
respondent nos.2 to 4. The petitioners were, in fact, clearly
informed that the appropriate authority in respect of their centre
would be the South-West District Authority.
9. In these circumstances, it is clear that unless there was a
formal reversal of this position with an intimation to the petitioners
that the appropriate authority qua their centre would be the West
District Authority, the impugned order could not have been passed
by the said authority. This position to my mind would obtain
notwithstanding the fact that an inspection was conducted and the
material so generated was furnished to the West District Authority
to act on it in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
10. In these circumstances, the West District Authority is
directed to immediately decide upon the objection contained in the
reply dated 5.1.2018 filed by the petitioners with respect to its
jurisdiction in the matter to take cognizance of the material filed
before it by the inspection team.
11. In case, it comes to the conclusion that it is not the
appropriate authority, it will recall the impugned order and transmit
the inspection report to the South-West District Authority for
passing an order on merits.
12. Needless to say that since the activities at the centre of the
petitioners have been in limbo since 22.12.2017, the West District
Authority will do the needful within three days of receipt of the
copy of this order. The parties will, thus, appear for this purpose
before the West District Authority, on 13.2.2018 at 11:00 am.
13. This writ petition as well as pending application is disposed
of in the aforesaid terms.
14. Dasti to the parties under signatures of the Court Master.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 09, 2018
aj
