Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.47 seconds)
Dr. Chandra Kiran Rohledar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 March, 2024 cites

Smt.Kiran Devi Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 3 ... on 4 February, 2020

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the provisions of Section 30 (1) of the Act of 1994, authority and jurisdiction to seal the sonography machine is vested with the District Magistrate at the district level and Block Medical Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:7789 3 Officer at the block level, therefore, the act of sealing the petitioner's sonography machine by a team of Naib Tahsildar, Saraipli is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. He would further submit that in this regard, a notification was issued by the Government of India dated 12.02.2007 and another notification was issued by the State Government on 01.10.2007. He would also submit that in the present case at the instance of the SDO, (Revenue), the Tahsildar sealed the sonography machine of the petitioner which is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Act of 1994 and the notifications issued in this regard by the Central Government as well as by the State Government. He would contend that the power and jurisdiction to seal sonography machine lies subject to recording finding that he has 'reason to believe' that an offence under the Act of 1994 has been or is being committed at such centre, then only the power of sealing can be exercised. In the present case, neither the sealing has been done by the appropriate authority nor the finding of 'reason to believe' has been recorded therefore the action taken by the Nayab Tahsildar was without jurisdiction and without the authority of law. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Smt. Kiran Agrawal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others1 in support of his submissions.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Centre For Enquiry Into Health And ... vs Union Of India & Others on 10 September, 2003

6. It is correct to say that the committee constituted pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Centre for Enquiry Into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT) and others v. Union of India and others 2 inspected the sonography centre of the petitioner and noticed certain discrepancies/irregularities in maintaining the records as well as images, but the committee itself sealed the ultrasound machine at said centre installed by the petitioner. The said inspection committee made the recommendation to the District Magistrate-cum-appropriate authority regarding sealing the ultrasound machine of the petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1