Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Medi Sewa Ultasound Centre vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 January, 2017

                            WP-398-2017
       (MEDI SEWA ULTASOUND CENTRE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


25-01-2017

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned Government Advocate for
respondent State.

In furtherance to order dated 17.1.2017 learned Government Advocate has brought on record notification issued by the State Government in purported exercise of powers conferred vide sub-section (2) of Section 17 of Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002; which is in following terms:

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 17 of PNDT Act 199 the State Govt. appointed appropriate authorities as follows:

1. Vide order No. F8-3-95-17/Med.2 State Govt.

appointed by notification dated 26/3/96, Director Public Health and Family Welfare as appropriate authority for the whole of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

2. Vide order No.F-10-63-2001-17/Med-2 dated 4.4.2007 in continuation to order No. F-8-4/9717/Med-2 dated 31/1/98, District Collector appointed by notification dated 04/04/2007 as appropriate authority for the district of his/her jurisdiction area.

3. Vide order No. F-10-63-2001/17/Med-2, Executive Magistrate is appointed by notification dated 04/04/2007 as appropriate authority (District Collectors) for his/her jurisdiction area. Any complaint regarding violation of the rules/provisions of the Act can be made to the respective appropriate authority.” Another notification dated 11.9.2014 has been brought on record; whereby certain amendment has been effected in notification dated 26.2.2013 constituting the team headed by Director, Public Health and Family Welfare, Directorate, Health Services, Bhopal; President All India Women Conference Bhopal and Additional Secretary, Law and Legislative Affairs, Government of Madhya Pradesh as Member. In view of these learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of petition with liberty to avail the remedy under Section 21 of the Pre-conception and Pre- natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994; which provides for:

“21.Appeal.- The Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of suspension or cancellation of registration passed by the Appropriate Authority under Section 20, prefer an appeal against such order to :

i. the Central Government, where the appeal is against the order of the Central Appropriate Authority; and ii. the State Government where the appeal is against the order of the State Appropriate Authority, in the prescribed manner.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order under challenge is of 20.9.2016 and the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 19 (2) of Pre- conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 is thirty days, Appellate Authority may be directed to consider the appeal on merit.

Taking into consideration the fact that vide sub-rule (4) of Rule 19 of Rules, 1996, it is within the power of Appellate Authority to condone the delay, it is ordered that in case an appeal is preferred within 15 days from the date of communication of this order the appellate authority shall consider the same on merit rather throw it overboard on the ground of limitation.

Petition stands disposed of in above terms. C.c. as per rules.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vivek