The High Court upheld the principle that regulatory authorities must comply with statutory notice requirements in cases of suspension, reinforcing the necessity of due process in healthcare regulations.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder challenging the order passed by the State Appropriate Authority in Appeal No. 2 of 2011 dated 17.03.2011 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

2. The facts of the case briefly summarized are that the petitioner is having hospital at Ahmedabad known as Dev Hospital, which is one type of Polyclinic having other doctors from other branches like Gynecology, Physician and General Surgeon, who are also treating patient in the said hospital. The hospital of the petitioner has been granted registration under the PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "PNDT Act") for carrying out such genetic counseling, prenatal diagnostic procedure and prenatal diagnostic test, which is valid upto 23.05.2015. One Dr.Ruchita Sharda, Gynecology is also attending the hospital and the husband of the petitioner is also a doctor. It is the case of the petitioner that one Smt. Shilpa Punani of Wadhwan, District : Surendranagar had been admitted in the hospital of the petitioner on 10.09.2010 and she was advised to undergo ultra sonography test, which was carried out and Form No. F was filled in by Dr. Ruchita Sharda. Sonography test revealed that foetus, which is developing, was likely to be a mentally retarded child if it is allowed to grow. Therefore as per the medical science and jurisprudence, advice has been given to the patient that foetus is not properly developed and there are chances of complication if it is allowed to give a birth to a child. Therefore, husband and family members of the patient agreed for termination of pregnancy and the operation was performed on 11.09.2010 after obtaining necessary consent and other formalities were completed. However, one relative of Smt. Shilpaben serving in the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister has misused the office and pressurized the office of the Health & Family Welfare Department to initiate action against the petitioner, which led to complaint by the official and they have visited the hospital and in violation of R.12, prepared the panchnama and seized the sonography machine and certain files of the hospital of the petitioner. Thereafter, same has been confiscated and seal has been applied and custody has been given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approached the authority, who after following procedure, passed impugned order. It is also contended that the Appropriate Authority without following procedure as prescribed under S.20(1) and S.20(2) of the Act passed an order of suspension of the registration of the petitioner dated 25.10.2010 produced at Annexure - D.

3. Heard learned counsel, Shri B. T. Rao for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the respondent no. 1 and learned counsel, Shri N. J. Shah for the respondent no. 2.

4. Learned counsel, Shri Rao referred to the provisions of S.20 of the PNDT Act and submitted that provision of S.20(1) and S.20(2) of the PNDT Act clearly provide for the issuance of the notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing order regarding suspension of the registration. Learned counsel, Shri Rao submitted that as it has a consequence both civil as well as economic consequence and also it may affect the very profession of the petitioner, such an order could not have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel, Shri Rao submitted that though S.20(3) of the PNDT Act provides in public interest to take action for the