Orissa High Court
M/S.Sanjivani Ultrasound Clinic vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 11 May, 2026
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-May-2026 17:48:26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
M/s.Sanjivani Ultrasound Clinic, .... Petitioner
ITI Road, Talcher, Angul
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. U. Mishra, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. U.R. Jena, A.G.A.
For O.P. Nos.1 to 4
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
11th May 2026 B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. U. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. U.R. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for State- Opposite Parties.
2. The Petitioner has prayed for a direction to Opposite Party No.4 to release the Ultrasound Machine along with other articles and W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2026 17:48:26 documents seized on 14.08.2013 as per the seizure list under Annexure-3 and further, to issue fresh/renewed license in his favour.
3. Perusal of the writ petition reveals that after seizure of USG Machine on 14.08.2013 under Annexure-3, the license of the Petitioner under Pre-Conception & Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (in short, "PC & PNDT Act") was suspended vide order dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure-4) of the Chief District Medical Officer, Angul. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the State Appropriate Authority confirmed the order of CDMO vide order dated 02.07.2014 passed in Appeal Case No.04 of 2013. Then the Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.23322 of 2016, which was disposed of on 27.03.2017 with a direction to State Appropriate Authority to grant fresh opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and to dispose of the appeal afresh by a speaking order. Accordingly, the State Appropriate Authority vide order dated 02.05.2017 passed a reasoned order rejecting the appeal of the Petitioner.
4. Present writ petition, with the prayer afore-stated, was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.02.2025 on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable without availing the remedy under W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2026 17:48:26 Section 21 of the PC & PNDT Act. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner preferred W.A. No.703 of 2025 and a Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter for fresh hearing and disposal of the writ petition on merit as expeditiously as possible. The operative portion of the judgment dated 27.11.2025 passed in W.A. No.703 of 2025 reads as follows:
"8. On the aforesaid discussed factual matrix and legal position as set forth herein above, it demonstrably clears that the appellant/petitioner has exhausted remedy available in the statute on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Upon reviewing the challenged decision (impugned order) made by the learned Single Judge, it is not evident that there were any factual disagreements that would have prevented the Court from taking a decision based on the material available on record and substantive legal arguments of the case on merit. Having found no clear indication from the impugned order that there were factual disputes significant enough to justify the Single Judge not to address the issue raised in the writ petition on merit, this Court believes the learned Single Judge could have, or should have, decided the case on its merits. The writ petition is maintainable in view of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to supra.
9. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on records and diligent consideration of the arguments advanced vis-à-vis grounds of appeal, coupled with the fact that the appellant has exhausted remedy as directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.23322 of 2016 prior to insertion of Rule 19A of the PCPNDT Rules, this Court cannot hesitate but to hold that the writ petition is maintainable and, hence, the writ appeal succeeds. Consequently, the Order dated 19.02.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024 is set aside.
9.1 Considering the fact that no case has been instituted against the appellant despite around 12 years have been elapsed since information is furnished to the Police and the W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2026 17:48:26 seized goods including the ultrasound machine as per seizure list dated 14.08.203 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and zimanama (Annexure-F/2 to the counter affidavit) have been kept under seal since 14.08.2013, the learned Single Judge is requested to hear and dispose of the writ petition on merit as expeditiously as possible."
5. Accordingly, coming to the merit of the writ petition, as stated above, the Petitioner has come up with such prayer against the seizure of USG machine praying for release of the same without challenging the further action of suspending the Petitioner as per Annexure-4 confirmed by the appellate authority under Annexure-7.
6. A careful perusal of the prayer of the Petitioner reveals that he has prayed for release of the Ultrasonography Machine along with other articles and documents and has further prayed for issuance of a fresh/renewed license in his favour. Thus, it needs to be considered that whether a fresh/renewed license can be issued in favour of the Petitioner and the seized machine could be released in favour of the Petitioner during continuance of order of suspension, which remains valid against the Petitioner till date as per Annexure-4, and confirmed in the appeal ?
W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2026 17:48:26
7. It is true that during continuance of suspension of Petitioner's license under the PC & PNDT Act, he cannot be issued with a fresh or renewed license as much as he is not entitled to the custody of the seized machine in terms of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act. The provisions of the PC & PNDT Act mandate holding of license to possess the USG machine and to run the same. It is to be reiterated here that such suspension of license is in force till date and confirmed in appeal as per Annexure-7. The Petitioner does not challenge the suspension of his license in terms of the order under Annexure-4 & 7.
8. Thus, no merit is seen in favour of the Petitioner either to grant him a fresh order or renewed license or to release the USG machine in his favour, violating the provisions of PC & PNDT Act.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/A.R.-cum-Senior Secretary W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024 Page 5 of 5