S.J. Vazifdar, J.

1. The petitioners are orthopedic surgeons. Respondent No.1 is the Maharashtra Medical Council. Respondent No.2 – one Sanjaykumar Dattatraya Funde is the Medical Health Officer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, who had filed a complaint against the petitioners, which we will refer to shortly. Respondent No.3 is the Appropriate Authority under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).

2. The petitioners seek a writ setting aside an order passed by respondent No.1 suspending their registrations with the Maharashtra Medical Council for a period of five years from 20th April, 2013, and/or till the final decision of a criminal case on charges framed against them for contravening the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, whichever is earlier. The impugned action is taken under Section 23 (2) of the said Act. They further seek an order staying the impugned order till the decision in the criminal case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate and in any event till the Review Application filed by them before respondent No.1.

3. The question that falls for consideration is whether section 23(2) of the said Act makes it mandatory for respondent No.1 to suspend the registration of a registered medical practitioner, if charges are framed against him by the Court under the said Act.

Sub-section (2) of Section 23 reads as under:-

“(2) The name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council concerned for taking necessary action including suspension of the registration if the charges are framed by the Court and till the case is disposed of and on conviction for removal of his name from the register of the Council for a period of five years for the first offence and permanently for the subsequent offence.”

Respondent No.1 was itself of the view that the mere filing of charges does not require it to compulsorily suspend the registration of a registered medical practitioner. Respondent No.1 was rightly of the view that upon charges being framed, it was to initiate an enquiry whether the registration of the concerned medical practitioner ought to be suspended and if so, for what period. We have upheld this view and the submission on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No.1, however, has taken the impugned action of suspending the petitioner's registration without anything more only in view of a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court.

4. Mr. Ravi Kadam, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that even though charges have been framed against the petitioners, respondent No.1 is bound to issue a show cause notice and take a decision of its own as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, their registration as medical practitioners ought to be suspended or not and if so for what period. The charges being framed is only an aspect which respondent No.1 may consider in deciding whether or not the registration ought to be suspended till the disposal of the case. He further submitted that in the present case there is nothing to indicate the involvement of the petitioners in an offence admittedly committed by another doctor one Dr. Ivan Rocha. Moreover, according to him, even the complaints filed do not indicate any offence by the petitioners.

5. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have been practising as surgeons for 17 years and 27 years respectively. They are attached, inter-alia, with J.P. Hospital, Mumbai. The petitioners as partners have taken the said hospital on the basis of a leave and licence agreement dated 25th October, 2010 for a period of three years.

6. Respondent No.2, who was appointed as the Appropriate Authority under the said Act filed a complaint dated 19th November, 2011, against one Dr. Ivan Rocha and the petitioners under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Proce