Gujarat High Court
Milankumar Ishvarbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 7 April, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 284 of 2026
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/12030/2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2026
======================================
MILANKUMAR ISHVARBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR GADHAVI for MR. SUMIT V CHAUDHARI(9388) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS RV ACHARYA(1124) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 07/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition wherein the order passed by the State Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined appropriate authority in Appeal No.3 of 2025 dated 31.05.2025 and the consequent directions therein, under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 ('PC & PNDT Act' in short) has been dismissed was subject matter of challenge.
3. A prayer has also been made before the writ Court to set aside the order, restore the registration of the petitioner under the PC & PNDT Act and to open the seals applied on all the three sonography machines.
4. The judgment impugned categorically records and hold in paragraphs '6' to '10 as under:-
"6. Heard learned counsels for the parties, perused the documents and considered the submissions.
7. The Appropriate Authority under the PC & PNDT Act and the Chief District Health Officer, Sabarkantha District Panchayat, Himmatnagar, held that a sting/decoy operation conducted on 18.02.2025 at Lakshmi Women's Hospital revealed violations of Sections 4(3), 5 and 6 of the PC & PNDT Act and Rules 9(1) and 9(4), including taking money for sonography, pursuant to which three sonography machines were sealed and a notice was issued; after considering the explanation submitted by the hospital, the District Advisory Committee, in its meeting dated 28.02.2025, rejected the explanation of the petitioner and resolved to take action under the Act. A criminal complaint was thereafter also filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Idar on 11.03.2025 and consequently the sonography machine registration bearing No. GJ14000155GC/2013 was cancelled under the PC & PNDT Act until further orders.
8. The State Appropriate Authority under the PC & Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined PNDT Act, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Gujarat, held that the District Appropriate Authority had duly issued notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, that non-filling of Form F is not a minor or clerical lapse even in cases of alleged emergency. That the statements of the decoy pregnant woman and supporting material showed demand and acceptance of money for sex determination and that the appellant had failed to maintain mandatory records in violation of Sections 4(3),
5 and 6 and Rules 9(1) and 9(4) of the PC & PNDT Act. Consequently, finding no infirmity in the action taken and noting that a criminal case was already pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Idar, the State Appropriate Authority has rejected the appeal and upheld the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the District Appropriate Authority cancelling the sonography registration, subject to the outcome of the court proceedings.
9. No error can be attributed to the findings arrived at by the Authorities below. The petitioner has been trapped in a planned sting operation. The actions taken by the District Authority is in accordance with law.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion and having found no illegality, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice in the orders dated 24.03.2025 passed by the District Appropriate Authority and 31.07.2025 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, the present Special Civil Application is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."
5. Assailing the order passed by the writ Court, it is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to record a finding of violation of mandatory provisions of PC & PNDT Act based on the statement of decoy pregnant women, when no sonography was done of the said patient. Allegations of demand and receipt of money is not supported by any Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined material on record, and moreover, money allegedly paid by the said patient was never recovered. The further submission is that audio video recording, which is the basis of taking action against the petitioner under the PC & PNDT Act was never supplied to the petitioner and no independent witness was examined.
6. Insofar as the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge about the non-filling of form - 'F' and non-entry in the PC & PNDT register, i.e. mandatory requirement under Sections 4(3), 5 and 6 of PC & PNDT Act and Rule 9(1) and 9(4) of PC & PNDT Rules, it was submitted that as no sonography of the said patient was done, there was no requirement of filling up of form 'F' and the entry in the PC & PNDT register. The submission, thus, is that the learned Single has proceeded on the material which do not form any substantive basis for cancellation of the registration of the Sonography Centre of the petitioner on the allegations of violation of PC & PNDT Act.
7. The further submission is that there is a clear violation of the procedure in the matter of inspection, preparation of panchnama and seizure of material from the premises of the petitioner. The submission is that the copies of the material seized from the premises of the petitioner, which were the basis of allegations of sex determination, were not supplied for the first time, i.e. before issuance of the show-cause notice by the district authority. Non-supply of the panchnama and the supporting material, which was the basis of taking action against the petitioner would amount to violation of principles Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined of natural justice.
8. The order of the district authority is a one paragraph order which does not indicate any violation of the PC & PNDT Act. The appropriate appellate authority passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner and none of the said authorities, including the learned Single Judge have dealt with the categorical submissions of the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice that the seized material containing form 'F', register maintained under PC & PNDT Act, OPD register, CCTV footage of the hospital etc. had not been provided to the petitioner at any point of time during the entire proceedings.
9. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495] to substantiate the above submissions.
10. Taking note of the said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we may have a look to the stand of the petitioner before the writ Court. As per the statement made in the writ petition, the petitioner stated in paragraph '3.3' that a sting operation had been carried out at the hospital of the petitioner on 18.02.2025 and the respondent No.2 therein namely, the Appropriate Authority and Chief District Health Officer, Sabarkantha Jilla Panchayat, Himmatnagar, had sealed all the three sonography machines of the petitioner without drawing any panchnama / Rojkam and without providing a copy of the same or even the list of the seized material.
Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined
11. It is further stated in paragraph '3.4' of the writ petition that a show-cause dated 18.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was asked to remain present in person within three days for making written / oral explanation as to why the registration of the petitioner under the PC & PNDT Act should not be either suspended or revoked. The contention is that the show-cause notice does not refer to any specific breach of any statutory provision. The written explanations dated 20.02.2025 and 21.02.22025 were submitted by the petitioner but the same were not accepted and vide order dated 24.03.2025, the registration of the petitioner under PC & PNDT Act had been suspended till further orders.
12. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Appeal No.3 of 2025 before the State appropriate authority. The copy of memo of appeal along with the list of dates and particulars submitted with the appeal are appended with the writ petition.
13. The other assertions are with regard to the communications sent by the petitioner dated 05.05.2025 and 18.06.2025 whereby the petitioners made a request for early hearing. Ultimately, the appeal challenging the order of suspension of the registration of the petitioner under PC & PNDT Act passed by the district authority, has been dismissed.
14. Amongst the grounds stated in the writ petition to challenge the order passed by the district and the appellate Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined authority, the relevant are:-
(i) The State authority in its order observed that it has verified the statement of decoy patient and has not verified whether a copy of the said statement has been given to the petitioner. Non-supply of the copy of the statement of the patient relied by the district as well as State authority, is in breach of principles of natural justice.
(ii) No document like Rojkam / panchnama / list of things seized has been provided to the petitioner by the district authority.
(iii) The reasoning given by the district authority and the State authority are based on the statement of the so called decoy patient recorded during the sting operation, and, for the first time, during the course of the appeal before the State authority, the petitioner came to know about the reason for the action of the district appropriate authority of sealing of sonography machines and suspension / revocation of the registration of the petitioner's centre under the PC & PNDT Act.
(iv) As regards the allegations that though sonography of the patient has been done, form 'F' has not been filled in completely, and entry about the same has not been done in the PC & PNDT register, the ground 'D' in the writ petition is relevant which reads as under:-
"D. One of the allegation by the district appropriate Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined authority is that though sonography of the patient has been done, form F has been filled in completely, entry about the same is not done in PCPNDT Act register. There is no time limit prescribed in the Act or rule to have done an entry in the register. Considering that there is a time limit of submitting form F up to 5 th of next month, the same can be expected for even filling the register. This wise, the allegation of the district appropriate authority cannot be sustained.
Even otherwise also, it is not the case of the district appropriate authority that by not having entry into the register, the authority is deprived of any particular information leading to frustration of the object of the Act. Thus, the district appropriate Authority has failed to demonstrate any de facto prejudice that has been caused by the so-called allegation of not having made entry into PNDT register. Even explanation was tendered that as there was emergency pregnant patient requiring medical attendance / operation, the same has been attended 1st and thereafter entry into the register was to be made."
(v) The other grounds are pertaining to the denial of the demand of money from the decoy patient in determination or disclosure of the sex of the foetus. It is stated that in a routine course of practice, money is received in cash and assertions are that there is not even a single currency note which has been recovered to justify the allegation of receipt of Rs.25,000/- in cash at the medical store.
(vi) No complaint has ever been received against the petitioner and there are no antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is having a good reputation / prestige in the society and there is no need for committing breach of the statutory provision, much less for the petitioner being involved in sex determination / disclosure.
Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined
15. Considering all the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the averments made in the writ petition, pertinent is to note that there was a categorical stand of respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge that sting operation was carried out and in audio video clip of the sting operation, the statement of decoy patient was recorded, and the transcript goes to show that Rs.25,000/- was deposited with Mr. Jigar Patel at Roshni Medical Store by the decoy patient. The petitioner had performed sonography on decoy patient without filling up form 'F', which is a mandatory condition under the provisions of PC & PNDT Act. As per the statement of the decoy patient, she was asked to deposit Rs.25,000/- for disclosing the sex of the foetus. The statement of the attendant with the said patient was also recorded, which substantiated demand of money and receipt thereof.
16. In light of these facts reflected from the record, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that as per own case of the petitioner as indicated in ground 'D' of the writ petition, form 'F' has not been filled up properly. There was no entry in the PC & PNDT register and there is no categorical denial of the sonography of the patient having been conducted as is evident from the statement made therein. Moreover, during the course of sting operation / surprise inspection conducted by respondent No.2, an audio video clip of the entire operation has been prepared wherein the statement of decoy patient has been recorded who categorically stated about the demand of money by the petitioner for sex determination of the foetus Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined and that the money was paid at the medical store on the instructions of the petitioner. In this scenario, we do not find any error in the findings of the learned Single Judge, as extracted hereinabove.
17. All the averments made with regard to the procedural aspect are not required to be dealt with for the simple reason that the petitioner has not denied that the sting operation was conducted in the presence of the representative of the petitioner and the entire recording was made in an open and transparent manner. The petitioner was called upon for personal hearing but instead of appearing before the district authority, only written explanations were submitted. There is no whisper in the writ petition that the petitioner had appeared before the district authority when opportunity was granted to submit his explanation personally.
18. The orders passed by the competent authority cannot be said to suffer from any error of law, much less violation of principles of natural justice. The procedure conducted by the respondent No.2 is in clear contemplation of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act.
19. Reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court Ravinder Kumar (Supra) is of no benefit to the petitioner.
20. With the above, no interference is called for. The present appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/284/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/04/2026 undefined CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 of 2026 Mr. Jigar Gadhavi holding brief of Mr. Sumit Chaudhari, learned advocate, upon instructions from the petitioner, would submit that the Civil Application be dismissed as not pressed. The Civil Application is dismissed as such.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.) (D.N.RAY, J.) siji Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by SIJI THOMAS(HC00174) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:33:21 IST 2026