Compliance with procedural requirements is essential in administrative actions regarding registration cancellation and search under the PCPNDT Act, emphasizing the necessity for due process.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

2. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the State Appellate Authority as well as the order dated 13.10.2023 whereby, the registration of the petitioner’s Ultrasound Centre was cancelled and the suspension order dated 12.05.2023.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner no.1 is a diagnostic centre running in the name of “Alpha Diagnostic Centre”, which was registered on 08.09.2021 and was running in terms of the provisions contained in Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the PCPNDT Act”). On the basis of an authorization letter dated 01.05.2023 issued by the SDM, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, an inspection was carried out on 01.05.2023 and an order of seizure and sealing the ultrasound centre was passed on 01.05.2023 itself, which is contrary to the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. It is pleaded that in terms of the provisions of the PCPNDT Act satisfaction of the District Magistrate is required and no such satisfaction was recorded or any authority letter was issued to the respondent no.3 authorizing him to search and seized or seal the premises. It is stated that the District Magistrate was himself not present and thus the mandate of Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act was not observed.

4. It is argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that although in the search report, it is mentioned that information was given to the District Magistrate and he has delegated his power to the Nayab Tehsildar, however, no order was passed or shown in pursuance to the search. An order of cancellation came to be passed, however, no notice as prescribed under Section 20 (2) was on record or served nor was there any recommendation of the Advisory Committee ever placed before the District Magistrate. It is further argued that no seizure memo was prepared on 01.05.2023 and the same was subsequently prepared on 24.05.2023 by making forged and fabricated signatures of the persons mentioned therein. The signatures are different and which makes it clear that the same was antedated. Even the signature of the Manager of the Centre was fabricated, by way of a comparison, both the signatures have been placed on a common sheet. It is further argued that the provisions of Section 30 and Rule 12 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules 1996 (in short “the PCPNDT Rules” as well as the provisions of Section 100 of Cr.P.C. were not followed and there were no independent witness. It is stated that after passing of the order dated 12.05.2023 and 13.10.2023, the petitioner preferred an Appeal No.109 of 2023 under Rule 19 of the PCPNDT Rules read with Section 21 of the PCPNDT Act on 07.11.2023.

5. It is further argued by the Counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the appeal, for the first time the seizure memo was provided to the petitioners on 16.10.2023 on his moving an application. It is further stated that the appellate authority had directed the respondent to produce the original records along with the report of the Advisory Committee and ultimately on 12.03.2025, the report of the Advisory Committee dated 10.05.2023 was produced and served upon the petitioners and in respect of Point No.8 of the said report, there was no recommendation of the Advisory Committee for suspension/ cancellation of the registration of the petitioner no.1, which is mandatory in terms of Sections 17 (4)(d), 17 (4)(i) and Section 20 (2) of the PCPNDT Act. It is further argued that t