Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Raju Premchandani vs Public Health And Family Welfare ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
-1- W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 2231 of 2019
DR. RAJU PREMCHANDANI
Versus
PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4972 of 2019
DR. AJAY MODI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Asudani - advocate along with Shri Ankit Premchandani,
Advocate for the petitioners (in W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019).
Shri Vishal Singh Panwar -GA appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Vishal Baheti, senior Advocate along with Shri Arjun Pathak, Advocate for
the respondent no.2.
ORDER
1] This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019 as both the petitions have arisen out of the common order of suspension of registration of the petitioners as Allopathy medical practitioners.
2] For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in W.P. No.2231/2019 are being taken into consideration. 3] The petitioner's case is that he is a registered medical practitioner having done his M.B.B.S and DMRE and is presently practicing at Indore. The case of the petitioner is that on 11.6.2011, a team headed by the Nodal Officer, PNDT visited the petitioner's Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 10-02-2025 10:38:11
-2- W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019 Sonography Center, and allegedly found non-compliance of the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short Act of 1994) and the Rules 1996 made thereunder. A complaint was subsequently filed on 5.9.2011, under Sections 23 and 25 of the Act of 1994 in the Criminal Court, and the charges were also framed against the petitioner on 23.6.2017 by the trial Court. Subsequently, on 27.9.2018 and 6.11.2018, the respondent no.3/Collector-cum-Appropriate Authority, informed respondent no.2 to suspend petitioner's registration under Section 23(2) of the Act, 1994, till the final disposal of the criminal case No.16923/2011. Pursuant to that, show cause notices were also issued by the respondent no.2 on 22.11.2018 and on 6.11.2018 (Anneuxre P/6), as to why his registration as a medical practitioner may not be suspended to which a reply was also filed by the petitioner on 3/12/2018 (Annexure P/7). However, without considering the reply, the order of suspension has been passed by the respondent no.2/M.P. Medical Council Bhopal on 26.12.2018, thereby suspending the registration of the petitioner which led the petitioner to file the present petition, and on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 4.2.2019, while issuing notice, this Court had also stayed the operation of impugned orders dated 26/12/2018 (Annexure P/8) and 18/1/2019 (Annexure P/9).
4] Shri Vijay Aasudani, learned counsel assisted by Shri Ankit Premchandani learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders dated 26/12/2018 (Annexure P/8) and 18/1/2019 (Annexure P/9) clearly run against the principles of natural justice, as Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 10-02-2025 10:38:11
-3- W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019 despite issuing a show cause notice and receiving a reply from the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and without adverting to the reply filed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that otherwise also it was not necessary for the respondents to suspend the registration of the petitioner which is also not in the scheme of Section 23 of the Act of 1994. 5] In support of his submissions, Shri Aasudani, learned counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Dr. Ramineni Venugopal Somaiah & Another Vs. Maharashtra Medical Council , Mumbai & Others reported as 2013(6) Mh.L.J, thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders deserves to be quashed and the petition deserves to be allowed. 6] On the other hand, the prayer is opposed by Shri Vishal Baheti, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Arjun Pathak, learned counsel for respondent no.2/M.P. Medical Council Bhopal, and a reply has also been filed. It is submitted that the respondents have acted under the provision of Act of 1994, and no illegality has been committed by them, and that Section 23 (2) of the Act of 1994 has been complied with.
7] Heard. On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record as also the impugned orders dated 26/12/2018 (Annexure P/8), it is found that they do not even have any reference of the reply filed by the petitioner in respect of the show cause notice, and it appears that in a cavalier manner only the impugned orders have been passed by referring to Section 23 (2) of the Act of 1994. Thus, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed without Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 10-02-2025 10:38:11
-4- W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019 affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and also without reflecting upon the reply filed by him, in such circumstances, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed.
8] So far as the decision in the case of Dr. Ramineni Venugopal Somaiah(supra) is concerned the relevant para reads as under:-
"28. Section 23(2) provides that in the event of the charges being framed against a registered medical practitioner under the Act, the Appropriate Authority shall report the same to the State Medical Council 'for taking necessary action, including suspension of the registration'. The section does not state that upon the Appropriate Authority reporting the fact of charges being framed, the State Medical Council must suspend the registration. Section 23(2) does not require the State Medical Council to suspend the registration of the medical practitioners but only to take necessary action for suspension. Had the intention been otherwise, sub-section (2) would have provided that the name of the registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council for suspending the registration if the charges are framed by the Court. In other words, sub-section (2) would in that case have provided that the name of such registered medical practitioner shall be reported by the Appropriate Authority to the State Medical Council and upon receipt thereof, the registration of the concerned medical practitioner will be deemed to have been suspended. Sub-section (2) would have provided that in such a case, the State Medical Council would forthwith suspend the registration. "
(emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 10-02-2025 10:38:11
-5- W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019 9] This court also agrees with the aforesaid finding that it was not mandatory for the respondents to pass the order of suspension specially when in the reply, the stand taken by the petitioner is that there was only ministerial/clerical error on his part, and it was not a case where he indulged in sex determination of the fetus. 10] Resultantly, both the petitions stands allowed, and the impugned orders dated 26/12/2018 (Annexure P/8) and 18/1/2019 (Annexure P/9) are hereby quashed.
11] Accordingly, W.P.No.2231/2019 and W.P.No.4972/2019 stands allowed and disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE das Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA SUDHIR DAS Signing time: 10-02-2025 10:38:11