Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Aparna Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 April, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10733
1 WP-13429-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 23rd OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 13429 of 2025
DR. APARNA SAXENA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Sethi - Senior Advocate along with Ms. Geetanjali
Chaurasia - Advocatefor the petitioners.
Shri Mukesh Parwal - Government Advocate for the
resopndents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 20.03.2025
passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Civil Hospital, Agar
Malwa/respondent No.2, whereby he has directed stoppage of operation of
sonography machines with immediate effect in the hospital of the petitioners.
2. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, petitioners have an
alternate remedy of preferring an appeal before the appellate authority.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners
are not required to avail the said alternate remedy since the impugned order
has been passed in violation of the statutory provisions of the Pre-conception
and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10733
2 WP-13429-2025
1994. It is submitted that under Section 17 (5) of the Act an Advisory
Committee has been formed and before passing any order under Section 20
of the Act, the appropriate authority has to have the advice of the advisory
committee. That has not been done in the present case hence the impugned
order is wholly without jurisdiction, in view of which this writ petition,
despite the availability of alternate remedy deserves to be entertained.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
in Venkateshwara Imaging Centre versus District Medical and Health Officer
Warangal and others, AIR 2012 AP 165.
3. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that prior to
passing of the same show cause notice was issued to the petitioners who had
filed their detailed reply to the same. Each and every allegation levelled
against them was replied and reply on each and every allegation has been
considered and reasons have been given for non-acceptance of the same. In
the order it has also been recorded at page 9 that in a meeting of the District
Advisory Committee held on 04.03.2525 it has been decided that both the
sonography machines being run by Saxena Hospital and Research Centre
should be closed with immediate effect for the violations alleged against it. It
is hence not a case where the advice of the advisory committee has not been
taken by respondent No.2 before passing of the impugned order in view of
which the contentions as have been raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioners are ill-founded. The judgment in the case of Venkateshwara
Imaging Centre (supra) is hence not applicable to the facts of the case
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in view of availability of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10733
3 WP-13429-2025
alternate remedy to the petitioners and for the fact that the impugned order
has been passed after issuance of show cause notice to the petitioners and
considering their reply and by taking advice of the advisory committee, I do
not deem it to be a fit case for exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
5. The petition is hence declined to be entertained and is accordingly
dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy as
available to them under the law. In case the said remedy is availed of by the
petitioners within a period of 15 days from today, then the appeal to be
preferred by them shall be decided by the appellate authority on merits and
shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
