SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Guj) 535

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Ravi R.Tripathi
SURESH MANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
Special Civil Application 17994 Of 2006
Decided On : 08/30/2006

Advocates Appeared: MAITHILI MEHTA, N.K.MAJMUDAR

Headnote:

Pre-conception and Pre-natal diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 – Section 20 – Pre-natal Diagnostic techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1996 – Rules 17 (1), 17 (2), 1 (1), 9 (4), 5 (1), 9 (8) and 13 – Cancellation or suspension of registration – Seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondents authorities by which the registration of Genetic clinic of the petitioner has been suspended – case of the petitioner is that on 9-4-2006, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice (Annexure "a") after the place of the petitioner was visited and inspected in presence of two independent witnesses namely (i) Ishwarji laxmanji Chavda, aged 48 years, Deputy Mamlatdar, Chitnis Branch, and (ii) shri Gopibhai Dhanabhai Gamar, aged 41 years, Deputy Mamlatdar, Chitnis branch, Collector Office, Banaskantha, Palanpur along with 18 persons of the health Department of the District Panchayat – In the notice, various irregularities and breaches of Act, 1994 – Held, In the present case, the notice was issued on 9-4-2006. The order suspending the registration was passed – Petitioner herein has filed his reply to the show-cause notice on 12-4-2006 and on the same day, he made a request to the authorities by an application, which is at Annexure d to remove the seal applied to the hospital and to apply the seal to the sonography machine after allowing petitioner to place the sonography machine in room in a safe condition, so that it is not damaged. It is informed by the petitioner that the authorities have acceded to that request. The seal applied to the hospital is removed and the machine is now kept in a separate room and continued to be in sealed condition – Those appeals are also heard and the appellate authority has not found any reason to change the order passed by the appropriate authority at the District level – IT is at this stage, that petitioner is before this Court – Having taken into consideration all the relevant facts of the case and the provisions of law, the Court finds no substance in this petition – Petition is dismissed.

RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief as under :

"7 (b) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondents authorities dated 9-4-2006 by which the registration of Genetic clinic of the petitioner has been suspended".

It is also prayed in Para (c) as under :

"be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the action on the part of the respondents authorities in applying seal to the Sonography machine of the petitioner, in view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case".

The petitioner had been before the appellate authority by filing appeals, being Appeal Nos. 46 and 47 of 2006, which were decided by order dated 5-7-2006, copy of which is at Annexure h to this petition. It has been prayed in Para (d) as under :

"be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, quashing and setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority. e. respondent No. 3 dated 7-7-2006 (5-7-2006) by which it has been ordered to maintain status quo in respect of the seal applied to the sonography machine of the petitioner".

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that on 9-4-2006, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice (Annexure "a") after the place of the petitioner was visited and inspected in presence of two independent witnesses namely (i) Ishwarji laxmanji Chavda, aged 48 years, Deputy Mamlatdar, Chitnis Branch, and (ii) shri Gopibhai Dhanabhai Gamar, aged 41 years, Deputy Mamlatdar, Chitnis branch, Collector Office, Banaskantha, Palanpur along with 18 persons of the health Department of the District Panchayat, Banashkantha. In the notice, various irregularities and breaches of the provision of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity), are mentioned. It is also recorded in the notice that Registration holder Dr. Suresh M. Prajapati,. e. the petitioner herein, was not present in the hospital, and therefore, in the presence of his representative case writer Shri Laxmanbhai Karsanbhai patel and in presence of Shri Jignesh M. Raval, working as a Pharmacist in "simant Medical Store", situated in the campus of the hospital, record, register and the hospital was inspected/ examined. Looking to the irregularities and the breaches, including that of change of address, without permission of the authority, change of machine , as in the application for registration under P. N. D. T. Act dated 7-11-2002, "wipro GE Logic Alpha 100-M. P" Sonography Machine was mentioned, whereas "lt Medical Altra Sonography" machine was found in the consulting room of the petitioner. This change of machine was not intimated to the appropriate authority. It is stated in the notice that under Rule 13 of the Pre-natal Diagnostic techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1996, within three days, appropriate authority is required to be intimated such change. The notice also called upon the petitioner to intimate the authorities as to where the earlier machine is. It is mentioned in the notice that provisions of Rules 17 (1), 17 (2), 1 (1), 9 (4), 5 (1), 9 (8) and 13 are noticed to have been breached. The petitioner was granted three days time to file his explanation.

( 3 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, on the same day,. e. 9-4-2006, the appropriate authority under the P. N. D. T. Act passed the order and suspended the registration of the petitioner resorting to the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 20 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the notice and the order both are vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to pro


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top