Jagabandhu Barik vs State of Odisha - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3511

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3511

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
B.P. Routray, J
Jagabandhu Barik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.14988 of 2026 | CNR No. ODHC010352002026

Important Points

Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules, limiting registration to two clinics within a district, does not expressly prohibit a qualified practitioner from practicing in clinics across different districts, especially when the employer has issued a No Objection Certificate.

Subject

Medical Law - Regulatory Compliance

Act Referred

Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996: R.3(3)
Constitution of India: Art.226, Art.227

Headnote

(A) PC & PNDT Rules - Registration of Medical Practitioners - Interpretation of Rule 3(3) - The restriction permitting a medical practitioner to be registered with a maximum of two clinics within a district cannot be extended to prohibit practice in clinics located in two different districts. (Para 6, 7)

(B) Administrative Authority - No Objection Certificate (NOC) - When a Government employer has granted an NOC for private practice beyond duty hours, the District Advisory Committee cannot reject registration solely on the ground that the practitioner is employed in a different district, provided they are qualified. (Para 8, 9)

Issues: Whether Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules prohibits a qualified medical practitioner from conducting ultrasonography in two different districts if permitted by their employer.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.S. Mohanty
For the Respondents: S.K. Jee

Table of Content
1. initiation of writ petition against the prohibition of usg practice in a different district. (Para 1 , 2)
2. conflicting arguments regarding the interpretation of rule 3(3) of pc & pndt rules. (Para 3 , 4)
3. rule 3(3) limits clinics within one district but does not prohibit practice across different districts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. administrative rejection is unsustainable when a valid noc is provided by the employer. (Para 8 , 9)
5. setting aside of the impugned order and direction to grant permission. (Para 10 , 11)

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Additional Government Advocate for State-Opposite Parties.

2. The Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio-Diagnosis in V.S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla (VIMSAR). The Petitioner being a Radiologist applied for conducting radio-diagnosis in a private hospital, i.e. Rajaram Health Care, Attabira in the district of Bargarh and the Superintendent of VIMSAR issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ on 16.12.2025 at Annexure-2 stating that the authority has no objection if the Petitioner performs ultrasound at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira beyond his duty hours. But subsequently on 06.04.2026, the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh prohibited the Petitioner from performing the USG in Bargarh as per Rule 3(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (in short, “PC & PNDT Rules”). Said order dated 06.04.2026 under Annexure-3 is impugned in present writ petition.

3. Ms. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner as a qualified Radiologist has been permitted to perform USG in VIMSAR in addition to his duty and his authority has no objection in this regard to conduct USG at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira as per Annexure-2. But the order of the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh at Annexure-3 prohibiting him conducting the USG, in terms of Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules, is completely unsustainable as the same is found inapplicable to present Petitioner. It is also submitted that, when the Petitioner has ben permitted by the Superintendent of VIMSAR to conduct USG in Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh has no authority to deprive him on the ground that he is serving in Sambalpur District, taking aid of the provisions under Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules.

4. The State has filed its counter stating that the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh have decided to disallow the Petitioner in their proceeding dated 24.03.2026 keeping in view the provisions contained in Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules. It is further stated that when the Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor in VIMSAR, Burla in the district of Sambalpur, he cannot be permitted to perform USG at Rajaram Health Care Ultrasound Clinic situating at Attabira in the district of Bargarh. Mr. Jee, learned A.G.A. submits that the Petitioner, who is working in the district of Sambalpur, cannot come beyond the limits of his working district to conduct the USG in a private clinic situating in the district of Bargarh. He further submits that though the provision allows the Doctor to conduct USG in two hospitals in one district, but nowhere is it permitted to conduct the USG in two different districts, particularly in case of in a Government Doctor.

5. It is relevant to re-produce Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules qua the contentions raised by the parties.

“(3) Each medical practitioner qualified under the Act to conduct ultrasonography in a genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre shall be permitted to be registered with a maximum of two such clinics/centres within a district. The Consulting hours for such medical practitioner, shall be clearly specified by each clinic/centre.”