Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ram Lal Krishak vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 March, 2021

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13360/2019

Ram Lal Krishak S/o Shri Parsa Ram, Aged About 43 Years, B/c Jat R/o Shivam Hospital, Water Works Circle, College Road, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The District Collector, Nagaur, District Nagaur.

3. The Appropriate Authority (PCPNDT Act), Sub Division Nagaur Cum Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhaleria with Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Soni on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

09/03/2021

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is

being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following

reliefs:

"A. The impugned order dated 11.01.2016 (Annex.P/6) and order dated 08.07.2019 (Annex.P/7) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2 of 5) [CW-13360/2019]

B. The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the renewal application of the petitioner filed on 24.01.2014 for renewal of the registration certificate Annex.P/2 with all consequential benefits.

C. The respondents may kindly be directed to decide the renewal application afresh by ignoring the facts of pending appeal No.337/2016 against the order of acquittal, within the stipulated period."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

short question involved in this case is that the petitioner was

facing criminal trial, and therefore, his renewal application was not

being considered but now once the acquittal has been done by the

competent court, the renewal application shall have to be

considered by the respondents as the bar under Rule 18-A of the

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition

of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996) would

not apply.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

order rendered by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on

13.08.2019 in Prachi Medical Care Vs. State of Rajasthan

(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13411/2018). The relevant

portion of the judgment reads as under:

"In these circumstances, the ratio in the case of Sonological & Imaging Society (supra) would apply.

In the event of any applicant (including a doctor applicant) having been acquitted during the pendency of these proceedings, the bar under Rule 18A of the Rules of 1996, would obviously not apply. If an application is made, that would be considered on its merits and appropriate orders be made by the State.

The writ petition and appeals are dismissed - subject to the above condition."

(3 of 5) [CW-13360/2019]

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken this

Court to Rule 18-A of the Rules of 1996, and particularly sub rule

(4) (ii). Rule 18-A, in extenso, reads as follows:

"[18A. Code of Conduct to be observed by Appropriate

Authorities. - (1) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State,

District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall

observe the following general code of conduct, namely:-] [(i) maintain dignity, and integrity at all times] [(ii) observe and implement the provisions of the Act and Rules in a balanced and standardised manner in the course of their work] [(iii) conduct their work in a just manner without any bias or a perceived presumption of guilt] [(iv) refrain from making any comments which demean individuals on the basis of gender, race, religion] [(v) delegate his or her powers by administrative order to any authorised officer in his or her absence and preserve the order of authorisation as documentary proof for further action] [(2) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following Conduct for Advisory Committees, namely:-] [(i) ensure that the re-constitution, functions and other relevant matters related to advisory committee shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Advisory Committee Rules, 1996] [(ii) ensure that a person who is the part of investigating machinery in cases under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), shall not be nominated or appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee] [(iii) ensure that the process of filling up of vacancies in Advisory Committee shall start at least ninety days before the probable date of the occurrence of vacancy] [(iv) ensure that no person shall participate as a member or a legal expert of the Advisory Committee if he or she has conflict of interest] [(v) conduct frequent meetings of the Advisory Committee to expedite the decisions regarding renewal, cancellation and suspension of registration] [(3) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for processing of complaint and investigation, namely:-] [(i) maintain appropriate diaries in support of registration of each of the complaint or case under the Act]

(4 of 5) [CW-13360/2019]

[(ii) attend to all complaints and maintain transparency in the follow- up action of the complaints] [(iii) investigate all the complaints within twenty four hours of receipt of the complaint and complete the investigation within forty-eight hours of receipt of such compliant] [(iv) as far as possible, not involve police for investigating cases under the Act as the cases under the Act are tried as complaint cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] [(4) All the Appropriate Authorities including the State, District and Sub-district notified under the Act, inter-alia, shall observe the following conduct for registration and renewal of applications under the Act, namely:-] [(i) dispose of the application for renewal and new registration within a period of seventy days from the date of receipt of application] [(ii) ensure that no application for fresh registration or renewal of registration is accepted if any case is pending in any court against the applicant for violation of any provision of the act and the rules made thereunder.]"

6. Learned counsel for the respondents thus, submits that

an appeal against the acquittal is pending before the competent

court, and thus, it comes within the purview of prohibition of

renewal, if any, case is pending, and thus, the present writ

petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that

the Hon'ble Division Bench has not dealt with the issue of appeal

against the acquittal.

8. Thus, the acquittal has been dealt with by the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court and this is a clear case of acquittal

and any pendency of the appeal shall have no bar upon prohibiting

consideration of such application.

9. This Court, on considering the rival submissions as well

as on perusing the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court, is of the firm opinion that the purport of the judgment was

that if any acquittal takes place, the bar under Rule 18-A of the

Rules of 1996 would obviously not apply. The appeal, particularly,