Madras High Court
The Director Of Medical And Rural vs Vijay Sai Healthcare Hosur ... on 12 September, 2022
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.13570, 13580 and 13582 of 2022
1. The Director of Medical and Rural
Health Services (DMRHS),
359, Anna Salai, Chockalingam Nagar,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006. .. 1st appellant in both appeals
2.The District Appropriate Authority,
under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994,
Krishnagiri District. .. 2nd appellant in WA No.1854/2022
2. The District Enforcement Officer
cum Joint Director, under the
Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment
Regulation) Act, 1997,
Krishnagiri District. .. 2nd appellant in
WA.1855/2022
vs
Vijay Sai Healthcare Hosur Private Ltd.
Rep. by its Director,
Dr.J.Rajesh Kumar ... Respondent in both appeals
Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
against the order dated 25.07.2022 in WP Nos.18909 and 18912 of
2022.
For the Appellants : Mr.J.Ravindran,
Additional Advocate-General,
Assisted by Mr.A.Selvendran,
Special Government Pleader
For the Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior counsel,
for M/s.Arun Anbumani
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
After hearing the writ appeals at length, we found that the
order under challenge dated 26.07.2022 is mainly based on the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of
2022 dated 21.07.2022. The order aforesaid was challenged in
W.A.Nos.1758 and 1759 of 2022 and was reversed by the Division
Bench by judgment dated 05.08.2022. In the light of the aforesaid,
the challenge to the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 has been
made herein with a prayer to govern it by the judgment dated
05.08.2022 in W.A.Nos.1758 and 1759 of 2022.
2. It is alleged by learned Additional Advocate-General that
the writ petitions were disposed of without affording an opportunity
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
to the writ appellant to file counter-affidavit justifying their action
and accordingly, the prayer is to allow the writ appeal.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that the writ appellants were having an opportunity to
submit the counter-affidavit. The writ petitions were disposed of not
on the first day of hearing, rather, it was adjourned and disposed of
on the next date of hearing.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/writ
petitioner submits that since the order under challenge is mainly
based on the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
21.07.2022 rendered in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022 and the
said order having been reversed by the Division Bench in
W.A.Nos.1758 and 1759 of 2022 by judgment dated 05.08.2022, this
Court may pass appropriate order. It is, however, submitted that
certain issues raised by the writ petitioner/respondent have not been
dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge.
One of the issues is in reference to the action initiated by the writ
appellants by issuing a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act of 1994') and without
considering the reply given by the respondent/writ petitioner to the
said show cause notice, the suspension orders under Section 20(3) of
the Act of 1994 and under Section 5(2) and 6(1) of the Tamilnadu
Clinical Establishment Act, 1997 (in short 'the Act of 1997') were
issued. The issue aforesaid goes to the root of the case.
5. The other issue was that the orders under Section 20(3) of
the Act of 1994 and Sections 5(2) and 6(1) of the Act of 1997 have
been passed in a cyclostyle manner having been worded in similar
lines, despite it being passed by different authorities at different
places. Thus, it was without application of mind and accordingly,
either this Court may address the aforesaid issues or the matter may
be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for afresh hearing of
the writ petitions, however, liberty may be given to the
respondent/writ petitioner to raise all the available grounds to
challenge the orders impugned in the writ petition.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the writ
appellants submits that no one has precluded the respondent/writ
petitioner to raise all issues while arguing the writ petitions before
the learned Single Judge and if this Court permits the
respondent/writ petitioner to raise those issues before the learned
Single Judge by remanding the matter back, the order impugned may
be quashed and the writ appellants may be given liberty to file a
detailed counter to justify their action, as no opportunity for filing a
detailed counter was given exposing the conduct of the
respondent/writ petitioner through relevant documents.
7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and
find that the impugned order was passed in reference to the order
dated 21.07.2022 in the Writ Petition Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022.
The order aforesaid was applied to the present writ petitions and
accordingly, interference in the orders of suspension under Section
20(3) of the Act of 1994 and Sections 5(2) and 6(1) of the Act of
1997 was made and the writ petitions were disposed of without
affording an opportunity to the writ appellants to file a detailed
counter justifying their action. The aforesaid is one issue otherwise,
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has raised
other issues which were not addressed by the learned Single Judge,
as the writ petitions were disposed of mainly based on the earlier
judgment dated 21.07.2022 in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022.
Since appropriate opportunity of hearing is to be given, we accept the
prayer of both the parties to remand the matter back to the learned
Single Judge for afresh hearing with liberty to the respondent/writ
petitioner to raise all the available grounds and issues for challenge
to the impugned orders in the writ petition and at the same, the
learned Additional Advocate General is given liberty to file a detailed
counter and contest the writ petitions on available grounds.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 26.07.2022 passed in
W.P.Nos.19162 and 19166 of 2022 is quashed with remand of the
matter for afresh hearing and appropriate orders thereon. The
respondent/writ petitioner would be at liberty to press for interim
relief before the learned Single Judge and it is for the learned
Additional Advocate General to oppose it.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
9. The learned single Judge would deal with all the issues
raised by the parties after considering the facts available on record
as well as the legal issues raised therein, without being influenced
by any observation made in this judgment.
10. With the aforesaid, the writ appeals are disposed of. There
will be no order as to costs. Consequently,CMP.Nos.13570, 13580 and
13582 of 2022 are closed.
11. Looking to the urgency shown by the parties, the Registry is
directed to list the writ petitions before the roster Single Bench on
13.09.2022.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
12.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
tar
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
To
1. The Director of Medical and Rural
Health Services (DMRHS),
359, Anna Salai, Chockalingam Nagar,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 006.
2. The District Appropriate Authority,
under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal
Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Act, 1994,
Krishnagiri District.
3. The District Enforcement Officer
cum Joint Director, under the
Tamil Nadu Private Clinical Establishment
Regulation) Act, 1997,
Krishnagiri District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(tar)
W.A.Nos.1854 and 1855 of 2022
12.09.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
