Orissa High Court allows Dr. Jagabandhu Barik to conduct ultrasound in two districts

A Radiologist’s Right to Practice Across District Lines

In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has held that a qualified radiologist cannot be barred from conducting ultrasound examinations at two clinics situated in different districts under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC & PNDT) Rules, 1996. Justice B.P. Routray set aside a prohibition order passed by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer (CDMO) of Bargarh, clearing the way for Dr. Jagabandhu Barik to work at a private hospital in Attabira.

The Case in Brief

Dr. Jagabandhu Barik, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio-Diagnosis at V.S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (VIMSAR), Burla, in Sambalpur district, sought permission to perform ultrasound at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, located in the neighboring Bargarh district—just 25 km away. His employer, the superintendent of VIMSAR, issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) on December 16, 2025, allowing him to work beyond his regular hours.

However, on April 6, 2026, the CDMO of Bargarh prohibited Dr. Barik from conducting ultrasounds at the Attabira clinic, citing Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules. The rule states that a medical practitioner can be registered with a maximum of two clinics “within a district.” The district authorities in Bargarh interpreted this to mean that a doctor practicing in one district cannot work in another district.

Arguments from Both Sides

Ms. P.S. Mohanty, counsel for Dr. Barik, argued that Rule 3(3) only restricts the number of clinics within a single district, not across different districts. She emphasised that the NOC from VIMSAR showed the employer had no objection, and that the CDMO had no authority to overrule that permission.

On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Jee, Additional Government Advocate for the state, maintained that a government doctor based in Sambalpur could not be allowed to conduct ultrasound in Bargarh. He argued that while the rule permits a doctor to work at two clinics in one district, it does not extend to two different districts.

Interpreting Rule 3(3)

The court examined Rule 3(3) closely and found no express prohibition against practicing in two different districts. Justice Routray observed that the phrase “within a district” in the rule refers to the jurisdiction of each District Advisory Committee (DAC). Since each district has its own DAC, the wording simply reflects that a doctor cannot register with more than two clinics under the same DAC. It does not mean a doctor cannot work under two different DACs.

“The plain interpretation of the provisions in Rule 3(3) read with the object of the Act does not contradict… by permitting the medical practitioner to conduct ultrasonography in two different clinics in two districts,” the court stated. The judge further noted that any other interpretation would be contrary to the object of the Act.

Employer’s NOC Key

The court also gave weight to the fact that Dr. Barik’s employer had allowed him to work outside his duty hours. “When the Superintendent of VIMSAR… has not raised any objection… the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh cannot reject the prayer of the Petitioner,” the court declared. The proximity of the two locations—Burla and Attabira are only about 25 km apart—was also taken into account.

Setting Aside the Prohibition

The High Court found that the Bargarh DAC had misapplied Rule 3(3) to deny Dr. Barik’s request. “No justification is seen on the part of the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh to apply the provisions of Rule 3(3)… to reject the request of the Petitioner, particularly when the Petitioner is admittedly a qualified Radiologist.”

The court accordingly set aside the April 6 order and directed the opposite party (the state) to grant the necessary permission for Dr. Barik to conduct ultrasound at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, if no other legal impediment exists.

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • “The plain interpretation of the provisions in Rule 3(3) read with the object of the Act does not contradict… by permitting the medical practitioner to conduct ultrasonography in two different clinics in two districts.”
  • “There cannot be any hindrance in view of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act and Rules to debar the medical practitioner from conducting ultrasonography in two clinics situating in two different districts.”
  • “When the Superintendent of VIMSAR… has not raised any objection… the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh cannot reject the prayer of the Petitioner to conduct ultrasonography at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira on the ground that the Petitioner is working as a Radiologist in Sambalpur district.”

Impact and Implications

This judgment clarifies that Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules does not impose a geographical restriction on a doctor’s practice across districts. It reaffirms the importance of the rule’s actual language and ensures that qualified medical professionals are not hindered by an overly broad interpretation of the regulation. The decision is expected to benefit many radiologists and other specialists who wish to offer their services in multiple locations within a short distance.