THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.23952 of 2025

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings bearing Lr.No.338/PC and PNDT/DM and HO/SRPT/2025/1698, dated 02.08.2025, whereby the registration of the Apple Scan Centre, located at H.No.1-4-249/154/14/2, M.G.Road, Suryapet District, which belongs to Petitioner, has been cancelled.

2. Heard Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri S.Sandeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

3. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, a qualified radiologist, completed MBBS in 2006 and M.D. in Radio Diagnosis by 2010, including clinical training at Rajwadi Hospital, and holds all necessary certificates. Petitioner has been running Apple Scan Centre, Suryapet, since 2011, taking over from the previous owner, with all registrations, equipment, and consultants approved under the PC & PNDT Act, including the renewal in June 2024, valid until May 2026. In April 2025, a news report falsely claimed the centre was closed for eight days, which was due to a family emergency. Based on this report, the 3^rd respondent issued notices and subsequently cancelled the centre’s registration despite the petitioner submitting all required explanations and documents, including the renewed registration of consultant Dr.Shaik Zulfakar Ali.

Hence, this Writ Petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further relied upon the Judgment dated 30.04.1976 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1277 of 1968 in the case of The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd Vs. The Union of India and another,, (1976) 2 Supreme Court Cases 981 wherein at paragraph No.6, it is specifically held as follows:

“6.Before we part with this appeal, we must express our regret at the manner in which the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India disposed of the proceedings before them. It is incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding differential duty were quasi- judicial proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is now settled law that where an authority makes an

order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M.Desai v. Testeels Ltd2. But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated December 8, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated June 4. 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals as indeed, in some kinds of cases with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to