JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 21.7.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022.)

Common Judgment:

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. Two writ appeals have been filed against the common order dated 27.01.2022, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the respondent in these appeals were disposed of with certain directions.

2. Two writ petitions were filed by the respondent in reference to two separate actions initiated by the appellants - one under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 [for brevity, "the Act of 1994"] and the other under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 [for short, "the Act of 1997"]. The first order dated 14.07.2022 was passed by the second appellant by invoking Section 20(3) of the Act of 1994, whereby the respondent/writ petitioner was instructed not to undertake any scan procedures, however, liberty was given to file an appeal under the provisions of the Act of 1994. The other order was passed on the same date under Sections 5(2) and 6(1) of the Act of 1997 not to admit new patients in the hospital and the patients undergoing treatment were directed to be discharged within two weeks after giving appropriate treatment to them. Therein also, liberty was given to file an appeal under the provisions of the Act of 1997.

3. The two orders passed on 14.07.2022 have been questioned by maintaining two writ petitions on the following grounds, which are otherwise given in paragraph 4 of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and are quoted hereunder:

"4. The petitioner denies the contentions of the respondents under the impugned orders and has challenged the same on the following grounds:-

a) The impugned orders of the second respondent in not allowing to admit any new patients in the Hospital and to discharge patients, who are undergoing treatment, directly affects the petitioner's right to carry on medical profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. According to them, there is no provision conferred under the Act to issue such directions.

b) The impugned orders do not record the reasons for the formation of opinion on the part of the second respondent for dispensing with the issuance of notice under Section 5(1-A) of the Act in public interest.

c) The second respondent, while issuing the impugned orders, has to record the reasons for dispensing with the issuance of notice before suspension of registration and form an opinion on the basis of such valid reasons that it is necessary or expedient to do so.

d) It is mandatory to give reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 and the competent authority should be satisfied that there has been breach of any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder or the conditions of registration while issuing the impugned orders, which are drastic in nature, affecting the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

e) The impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the ground of non-disclosure of reasons for passing the drastic impugned orders.

f) The impugned orders of the second respondent passed under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 and Section 20(3) of Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, without assigning any reasons or violations alleged to have been committed by the petitioner herein, are unsustainable.

g) The respondents failed to see that the registration of the license granted under Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, cannot be suspended or cancelled for any other reasons not falling within the scope of the said Act, and hence, the impugne