SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
District Appropriate Authority Under The PNDT Act And Chief District Health Officer – Appellant
Versus
Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3831 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17973 of 2015]
Decided On : 04-03-2024
PC&PNDT Act - Interpretation of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) - [20(1), 20(2), 20(3)] - The court discussed the interpretation of the powers of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act for cancellation, suspension, or suspension in public interest by the appropriate authority. It highlighted the distinction between the powers under sub-sections (1) & (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 20, emphasizing the necessity for forming an opinion and recording reasons in writing to exercise the power of suspension in public interest. The court also clarified that the power of suspension under sub-section (3) is intermittent and should be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, and for an interim period.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a hospital, had its registration suspended under the PC&PNDT Act due to contraventions found during an inspection. The respondent challenged the suspension in court, arguing that the appropriate authority did not follow due process and that the subsequent order of suspension in public interest was not justified.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial suspension order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, contrary to the provisions of the PC&PNDT Act. It also held that the subsequent order of suspension in public interest did not fulfill the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 20. The court upheld the decisions of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appropriate authority.
Issues: 1. Validity of the suspension orders under Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act. 2. Whether the appropriate authority followed due process and justified the suspension in public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the distinction between the powers under sub-sections (1) & (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 20, emphasizing the necessity for forming an opinion and recording reasons in writing to exercise the power of suspension in public interest. It also highlighted that the power of suspension under sub-section (3) should be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances, and for an interim period.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appropriate authority was dismissed, and the decisions of the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were upheld. No further consequential orders were required, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Leave Granted
2. In the present appeal, the issue concerns the interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “PC&PNDT Act”) for cancellation, suspension or suspension in public interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of the PC&PNDT Act.
3. The brief facts are that the respondent no.1 is running a hospital at Ahmedabad by the name of “Dev Hospital” which is a type of polyclinic having doctors from multiple branches like gynecology, general physician and general surgeon treating patients in the said hospital. The hospital was registered under the PC&PNDT Act and the said registration was valid up to 23.05.2015. On the basis of one complaint made by Shilpa Punani of Wadhwan District Surendranagar, an inspection of the hospital was conducted on 21.10.2010. During inspection, the appropriate authority and its team found some lapses contravening the provisions of PC&PNDT Act. Consequently, the sonography machine operated in the hospital was seized. On 25.10.2010, the appropriate authority without giving any notice passed an order suspending the registration of the hospital in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) of the PC&PNDT Act. On filing appeal by respondent no.1, the appellate authority vide order dated 21.12.2010 directed the appropriate authority to pass a suitable order within 15 days and to clarify whether the order dated 25.10.2020, was passed in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) or under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act. The appropriate authority taking cue from the order of the appellate authority, passed a fresh order on 29.12.2010 that there is a breach of mandatory provisions and accordingly suspended the registration purportedly under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act in public interest till finalization of the criminal proceedings.
4. An appeal preferred against the subsequent order dated 29.12.2010 by respondent no.1 was dismissed on 17.03.2011 by the appellate authority. Being aggrieved, by the order of suspension dated 29.12.2010 and the order passed in appeal dated 17.03.2011, writ application being SCA No. 6215/2011 was filed by respondent no.1 before the High Court of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as “High Court”) to set aside the said orders and to revoke the suspension of registration of the hospital. Prayer was also made to release the sonography machine seized by the appropriate authority.
5. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.08.2013 was pleased to allow the writ application inter alia observing that looking to the condition of foetus in the womb, once the patient has consented for abortion, she cannot make a complaint for alleged violation of provisions of PC&PNDT Act. The Court found that neither any notice was issued nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to passing the order suspending the registration. It was further held that while passing the first order of suspension on 25.10.2010, powers were exercised by appropriate authority under Sections 20(1) & (2) of PC&PNDT Act without affording an opportunity of hearing, which was contrary to the spirit of the said provisions and wholly unjustified. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that appellate authority was not justified to remit the matter in appeal against the order of suspension to the appropriate authority suggesting clarification whether such powers were exercised by him under Section 20(1) & (2) or under Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act and how far the reasons for exercising such power are justified. The Court further held that the reason as assigned in the subsequent order, if accepted as valid, then each and every case of suspension would fall within the purview of Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act and the provisions of Section 20(1) & (2) will be rendered redundant.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of Learn
The judgment established the necessity for the appropriate authority to form an opinion and record reasons in writing to exercise the power of suspension in public interest under Section 20(3) of the....
The High Court upheld the principle that regulatory authorities must comply with statutory notice requirements in cases of suspension, reinforcing the necessity of due process in healthcare regulatio....
Procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to in actions taken under the PCPNDT Act as arbitrary actions undermine the statutory framework.
Compliance with procedural requirements is essential in administrative actions regarding registration cancellation and search under the PCPNDT Act, emphasizing the necessity for due process.
Suspension of registration under the respective enactments is permissible only under extraordinary circumstances in public interest, with reasons recorded in writing.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.