SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2852

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy (SLNS) Diagnostic Centre – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 35986/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF

TELANGANA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No. 35986 OF 2025

30.01.2026

Between:

M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy (SLNS)

Diagnostic Centre

Rep. by its Managing Director Dr. D. Pandu Goud

@ Pandu

….. Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Department of Medical & Health

& others

….. Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner Diagnostic centre was being run by its

Managing Director Dr. D. Pandu Goud who possessed MBBS

and M.D Radiology Course and registered himself with

Telangana State Medical Counsel and the same was renewed

from time to time, valid up to 20.11.2027. It is stated,

unfortunately, T. Srilatha and D. Sujatha underwent abortion at

Gayatri Hospital at Bhongiri on 07.07.2025 and he has nothing

to do with the same and there was no request for sex

determination by them; except Srilatha, the other person is not

##PAGE2##

2

known to him and she did not undergo scanning with him,

however, police erroneously registered FIR No. 266 of 2025 on

07.07.2025 under various offences and he obtained bail and

gave sufficient sureties to lift the seizure of Diagnostic Centre.

1.1. While so, it is stated, the 3rd respondent gave show

cause notice to petitioner on 08.07.2025 based on registration

of FIR, alleged complaint of Circle Inspector and proceedings of

the 4th respondent dated 03.07.2025 and also the enquiry

report dated 08.07.2025. According to petitioner, even as per

the enquiry report, there is no material to come to the

conclusion against petitioner. Petitioner is stated to have

submitted detailed explanation on 14.07.2025, however, the 3rd

respondent without passing final orders, subsequently, on

10.09.2025, issued show cause notice. Petitioner is stated to

have filed explanation on 16.09.2025, but the 3rd respondent

without considering the same, issued the impugned order dated

07.11.2025 whereby petitioner’s licence to run the diagnostic

centre was cancelled.

2. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that

Prudhviraj Gyapaka filed Writ Petition No. 31457 of 2025

questioning the inaction of this respondent against petitioner

based on the complaint received from the Inspector of Bhongir,

##PAGE3##

3

dated 07.07.2025; enquiry was conducted and report was given

on 08.07.2025 and that they issued show cause notice on

08.07.2025 to petitioner to give explanation in 7 days; petitioner

submitted explanation on 14.07.2025 which was found

unsatisfactory. It is also stated, several complaints were made

by public against petitioner, hence, inspection was conducted

on 20.08.2025; the Collector and District Magistrate being the

Appropriate Authority issued notice to petitioner under Section

20 (1) of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques

Act, 1994 on 09.09.2025 and petitioner gave explanation on

16.09.2025; the same was placed before the District Level

Advisory Committee which examined the explanation and found

the same not satisfactory, hence, they recommended to the

District Level Appropriate Authority Committee under the

Chairmanship of the 3rd respondent to take necessary action

and the recommendation of District Level Advisory Committee

have been placed before the 3rd respondent which reviewed the

proposals of (DLSE) and passed a resolution and recommended

to cancel the registration by considering the facts and lapses

mentioned the impugned order was passed on 07.11.2025

under Sections 11 and 32 of Clinical Establishments Act and

that petitioner's Diagnostic Centre was registered under

##PAGE4##

4

Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments on 26.09.2023

by DM and HO but not registered under Clinical Establishments

Act. Petitioner also did not mention about cancellation orders

passed on 07.11.2025 in the earlier Writ Petition and

intentionally filed the present Writ Petition.

3. Respondents 5 and 6 were impleaded by order

dated 08.01.2026. They filed counter claiming to be the social

workers in Bhongir Town and District; they came to know that

petitioner diagnostic centre was conducting illeg

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top