Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The Petitioner has put-forth prayer clause-B, C and D as under:

"B) By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, it be hold and declared that, the impugned action dated 28/12/2023 taken by respondent No. 2 and 3 thereby sealing the sonography machine of petitioner be quashed and set aside. Consequently the respondent No. 2 and 3 be directed to de-seal the sonography machine of petitioner forthwith and for that purpose necessary directions be issued.

C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the effect, operation and execution of the impugned action dated 28/12/2023 taken by respondent No. 2 and 3 thereby sealing the sonography machine of petitioner be stayed and kept in abeyance. Consequently, the respondent No. 2 and 3 be directed to de-seal the sonography machine of petitioner forthwith and for that purpose necessary directions be issued.

j) Despite the above communication, no certificate for conditional renewal of registration was issued by the department.
k) The Petitioner tendered the competency certificate on 17.07.2023 and because she passed the competency exam in the first attempt, Rule 6 (2) of the 2014 Rules, exempts her from undergoing the six months training exercise.
l) Yet, the Department did not issue a renewal certificate which is for a period of five years.
m) A surprise check was performed on 28.12.2023 on the Petitioner's Sonography Centre and the authorities come to a conclusion that because she does not have the renewal certificate, she has been conducting the Sonography Centre, illegally. Her sonography machine was, therefore, sealed and a (5) 16 wp 1123.24 panchanama was drawn on 28.12.2023. The same continuous to be sealed even today.

10. We, therefore, draw a conclusion in the light of these glaring facts that the Respondents have acted highhandedly and the Petitioner's sonography machine has been sealed since 28.12.2023, in utter disregard of the Rules applicable, until today.

11. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that though the Petitioner has not claimed any damages, costs deserve to be imposed on the Respondents considering the conduct of the authorities and the loss caused to the Petitioner. The Petitioner never indulged in sex determination while ( 10 ) 16 wp 1123.24 conducting the sonography tests and there is no such allegations against the Petitioner that she has indulged in any such illegal and impermissible act. She was using the Sonography Centre in the routine manner, since she is a Gynecologist with due certification to operate the Sonography Centre. On account of the machine having been sealed, vital sonography tests could not be conducted on several patients.