Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief facts are that the respondent no.1 is running a hospital at Ahmedabad by the name of “Dev Hospital” which is a type of polyclinic having doctors from multiple branches like gynecology, general physician and general surgeon treating patients in the said hospital. The hospital was registered under the PC&PNDT Act and the said registration was valid up to 23.05.2015. On the basis of one complaint made by Shilpa Punani of Wadhwan District Surendranagar, an inspection of the hospital was conducted on 21.10.2010. During inspection, the appropriate authority and its team found some lapses contravening the provisions of PC&PNDT Act. Consequently, the sonography machine operated in the hospital was seized. On 25.10.2010, the appropriate authority without giving any notice passed an order suspending the registration of the hospital in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) of the PC&PNDT Act. On filing appeal by respondent no.1, the appellate authority vide order dated 21.12.2010 directed the appropriate authority to pass a suitable order within 15 days and to clarify whether the order dated 25.10.2020, was passed in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) or under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act. The appropriate authority taking cue from the order of the appellate authority, passed a fresh order on 29.12.2010 that there is a breach of mandatory provisions and accordingly suspended the registration purportedly under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act in public interest till finalization of the criminal proceedings.

5. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.08.2013 was pleased to allow the writ application inter alia observing that looking to the condition of foetus in the womb, once the patient has consented for abortion, she cannot make a complaint for alleged violation of provisions of PC&PNDT Act. The Court found that neither any notice was issued nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to passing the order suspending the registration. It was further held that while passing the first order of suspension on 25.10.2010, powers were exercised by appropriate authority under Sections 20(1) & (2) of PC&PNDT Act without affording an opportunity of hearing, which was contrary to the spirit of the said provisions and wholly unjustified. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that appellate authority was not justified to remit the matter in appeal against the order of suspension to the appropriate authority suggesting clarification whether such powers were exercised by him under Section 20(1) & (2) or under Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act and how far the reasons for exercising such power are justified. The Court further held that the reason as assigned in the subsequent order, if accepted as valid, then each and every case of suspension would fall within the purview of Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act and the provisions of Section 20(1) & (2) will be rendered redundant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant authority submits that on the scope of Sections 20(1), (2) & (3) of PC&PNDT Act, there is no judgment of this Court, so the question involved in the case is of general public interest. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Appropriate Authority, 2004 SC Online Bom 834 to urge that if power is exercised by appropriate authority to suspend the registration due to pendency of the prosecution, such power may be exercised in public interest under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act. It is contended that looking to the object of PC&PNDT Act, if the appropriate authority considers that the activity of the licensed entity is affecting the public at large, the power to suspend the registration or license is permissible. However, it is fairly stated that the High Court of Bombay has given a conflicting judgment in the case of J. Sadanand M. Ingle (Dr) vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC online Bom 697 which lays down that sub­section (3) starts with non­obstante clause and empowers the appropriate authority to suspend the registration temporarily. Dealing with the scope of Sections 20(3) and 30 of the PC&PNDT Act, it was observed that, both Sections are independent and action can be taken independent to each other. It is also urged that issuance of the order dated 25.10.2010 referring to the wrong provisions, would not itself render the said order illegal. The power under Section 20(3) is of interim nature which can be exercised in public interest in a time bound manner. Thus, by the subsequent order dated 29.12.2010, suspension of the registration as directed by the appellant authority was justified and prayed for to allow this appeal and to set­aside the orders of the High Court.

To Dr. Jasmina D. Devda, Dev Seva Trust, Kesariyaji Bus Stop Dr. Jivraj Mehta Hospital Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad.”

13. Having gone through the order and the provisions of sub­section (2) of Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act, in our view, the order dated 25.10.2010 cannot be said to be an order under sub­ section (3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act. In fact, it is simplicitor an order passed under sub­section (2) of Section 20 alleging contraventions of the provisions of PC&PNDT Act and the Rules. Therefore, we have no hesitation to say that the appellate authority, while remanding the matter vide order dated 21.12.2010, was not required to ask the appropriate authority to clarify whether the order of suspension was under sub­section (3) or under sub­sections (1) & (2) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act.