COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders both dated 14.07.2022 passed under Section 20(3) of Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and Section 5(2) & 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997. The following directions are passed under the impugned orders:-

a) The petitioner's Registration as a Clinical Establishment has been suspended under the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997.

b) The petitioner Hospitals have been prohibited from admitting new patients.

c) The petitioner Hospitals have been directed to discharge the existing patients within a period of two weeks.

d) The petitioner's registration under the Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, has been ordered to be suspended by exercising powers under Section 20(3) of the said Act.

e) The petitioner has been prohibited from scanning their patients by using their medical equipments in their Hospitals.

WP.No.18572 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order passed under the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997 and WP.No.18573 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order passed under the Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

2. The petitioner Hospitals claim that they are running three Hospitals for the past 35 years in the city of Erode and they have an unblemished track record. The impugned orders have been passed under the respective enactments making serious allegations against the petitioner Hospitals for the alleged violations committed by them in their Fertility Centre.

3. According to the respondents, as seen from the impugned orders, only based on the preliminary investigation and in public interest, the petitioner's registration under the two enactments has been suspended.

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 registratio