Orissa High Court
M/S. Sanjivani Ultrasound vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: S. K. Panigrahi
Bench: S. K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11461 of 2024
M/s. Sanjivani Ultrasound ..... Petitioner
Clinic Mr. Umakanta
Mishra,
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. Gayatri Patra,
ASC
CDMO, Angul
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 19.02.2025
06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. The Petitioner, by filing this Writ Petition, has
made the following prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may
graciously be pleased to admit the Writ application,
call for the records calling upon the opposite party to
show cause as to why the writ application would not
be allowed and if they fail to show cause or show
false or insufficient cause, may make the Rule
absolute by directing the 0pp. Party No.4 to release
the ultra sound machine and other articles and
documents seized on 14.08.2013 listed in the Seizure
Page 1 of 4.
list, given in Annexure- 3 and issue fresh /renewed
license within a short stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on
14.08.2013, the Petitioner's clinic was inspected by the State Appropriate Authority, created under the Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act, 1994 (for short, 'PC & PNDT Act'). They seized the machine and other equipments of the clinic as the clinic was running illegally and not complying with the PC & PNDT Act. He further submits that the said equipments i.e. ultrasound machine and other records of the clinic were seized by the said authority and an FIR was lodged on 14.08.2013. He further submits that the Petitioner's seized equipments have not yet been released to the Petitioner despite passing of 10 years in the meantime. Moreover, the State Appropriate Authority has not initiated any criminal action as per Section 17 (4)(e) of the Act. Therefore, the authority has violated Article 19(1)(g)of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays for release of his equipments, which has been seized and kept for such a long time. The Petitioner also seeks compensation from the said authority for seizure of its equipments and closing of the clinic without any fault. Page 2 of 4.
4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2/ Chief District Medical Officer, District Head Quarter Hospital, At/P.O/Dist- Angul, who is present before this Court in person submits that if the Petitioner is aggrieved, he should approach the State Appellate Authority through online and the State Appellate Authority shall consider his grievance in accordance with law.
5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the order dated 02.05.2017 has been passed in Appeal Case No.1 of 2017, by the State Appropriate Authority under the PC & PNDT Act dated 02.05.2017 by conducting elaborate hearing and the Petitioner had participated therein. But the said authority dismissed the Petitioner's appeal against which, he should have approach the State Government under Section 21 of the PC & PNDT Act.
6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on going through the averments made in this Writ Petition, this Court finds that in the present case, the Petitioner has not approached the appropriate authority under Section 21 of the PC & PNDT Act within the prescribed time, instead, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, which is not maintainable. Hence, Page 3 of 4. the Petitioner's case cannot be entertained at this moment.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.
8. Personal appearance of CDMO, Angul is dispensed with.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Gitanjali Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 20-Feb-2025 17:47:37 Page 4 of 4.