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) 11323

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M.Mohiuddin, J
Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Diagnostic Centre – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL No.214 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.Venugopal, T.Vasantha Rao
For the Respondents: R.Nagarjuna Reddy, Chenagoni Mounika, Sahithi Sri Kavya M.

Where an efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available against an administrative order of cancellation of registration under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994, the High Court under writ jurisdiction should generally relegate the parties to the appellate authority to scrutinize factual disputes and the sufficiency of the explanation provided.

Headnote:(A) Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 - Section 20 - Cancellation of registration - Diagnostic centre registration cancelled for alleged non-compliance with statutory record-keeping requirements - Appellant contended that explanations submitted to show-cause notices were ignored by the authority - Writ Court dismissed petition refusing to interfere in administrative decision - Appellate Court observed existence of statutory appellate forum under the Act - Matter remanded to the appellate authority to resolve merits of non-compliance and adequacy of explanation.

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Diagnostic Centre, faced cancellation of its registration following allegations of multiple record-keeping deficiencies (non-maintenance of patient registers, missing F-Forms, and incorrect entries) and failure to register under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. Despite furnishing explanations, the Appropriate Authority cancelled the registration. The High Court, in the writ petition, refused interference, prompting the current appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order and the lower proceedings involved disputed facts and statutory compliance issues that were better addressed by the designated appellate authority under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 rather than through writ jurisdiction. The order of the writ court was set aside to facilitate the statutory appeal.

Issues: Whether the writ court was correct in dismissing the petition without considering the adequacy of the explanation regarding statutory record-keeping and whether the petitioner should be directed to the appellate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory remedy of appeal exists, judicial review should not be exercised to substitute the court as an appellate authority on disputed factual findings, especially when the lower proceedings failed to properly address the appellant's specific explanations.

Result: Appeal allowed with directions to file an appeal within two weeks.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to cancellation of diagnostic registration. (Para 2 , 3)
2. appellants contention on procedural impropriety of the show-cause cancellation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court holds that statutory appeal forum must be exhausted. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT:

Heard Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Ms. Chenagoni Mounika, learned counsel representing Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya M., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner is a Diagnostic Centre whose registration under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC& PNDT Act, 1994’) was cancelled in exercise of the power under Section 20 of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 by the impugned order dated 07.11.2025 after issuance of a notice dated 10.09.2025 under Section 20(1) of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 and upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the appellant dated 16.09.2025. The charges in the show cause notice are enumerated from Serial Nos.(i) till (xxvii), which are extracted hereunder:

i) M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy (SLNS) Diagnostic Centre, H.No: 3-1-32/A, AMR Nagar, Opp: District Hospital, Bhongir town, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district is not maintaining patient register as per the PC&PNDT Act-1994.

ii) As per online data, 173 physical F-From are not submitted (Annexure-1 enclosed) under PC&PNDT Act-1994.

iii) 441 referral slips are not submitted (Annexure-II enclosed).

iv) Scanning Centre Registration number is not entered in 82 F-Forms (Annexure-III enclosed).

v) Total No. of living children not entered in 5 F-Forms (Annexure-IV enclosed).

vi) Husband/Wife/Father/Mother name is not interred in 1 F-Form (Annexure-V enclosed).

vii) Full Postal address is not entered in 2 F-Forms (Annexure-VI enclosed).

viii) Referral Doctor Name is not mentioned in 688 F-Forms (Annexure-VII enclosed).

ix) Self referral by Radiologist /Gynaecologist is not mentioned in 50 F-Forms (Annexure-VIII enclosed).

x) LMP (or) Months of Pregnancy is not mentioned in 13 F-Forms (Annexure-IX enclosed).

xi) Name of the Doctors performing the procedures is not mentioned in 35 F-Forms (Annexure-X enclosed).

xii) Indication for diagnostic is not mentioned in 526 F-Forms (Annexure-XI enclosed).

xiii) Declaration of Pregnant women/Person was not obtained and not mentioned in 18 F-Forms (Annexure-XII enclosed).

xiv) Date on which declaration of pregnant woman/person was obtained not mentioned in 57 F-Forms (Annexure-XIII enclosed).

xv) Results of non-invasive procedure carried out not mentioned in 71 F-Forms (Annexure-XIV enclosed).

xvi) Dates of results of pre-nate diagnostic procedures were not filled for 45 pregnant women of F-Forms (Annexure-XV endased).

xvii) Column of Indication for MTP as per the abnormality detected in the diagnostic procedures is not mentioned for 775 Pregnant Women;’s F-Forms (Annexure-XVI enclosed).

xviii) Radiologist is not signed on 944 F-Form’s of Section B (Annexure-XVII enclosed)

xix) Declaration of Pregnant Women not obtained for 3 Pregnant Women (Annexure XVIII enclosed).

xx) Signature/Thumb impression is not obtained for 199 Pregnant Women’s (Annexure-XIX enclosed).

xxi) Radiologist is not signed on 38 F-Forms of Section D (Annexure-XX enclosed).

xxii) Radiologist Signature is missed Matched in 66 F- Forms (Annexure-XXI enclosed).

xxiii) 23 Physical F-Forms are submitted but not entered in PC&PNDT web portal (Annexure XXII enclosed).

xxiv) M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy (SLNS) Diagnostic Centre, H.No: 3-1-32/A AMR Nagar, Opp: District Hospital, Bhongir town, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district is not registered under Clinical Establishment Act-2010.

xxv) F-Forms entered in online of PC&PNDT

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top