Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 17 in The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation And Prevention of misuse) Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation And Prevention of misuse) Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation And Prevention of misuse) Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation And Prevention of misuse) Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Appropriate Authority, Pndt Act And ... on 17 September, 2004
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.
The Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation And Prevention of misuse) Act, 1994
Dr.Sujit Govind Dange vs State Of Maharashtraig on 16 August, 2012
In support of the
said contention, reliance has also been placed on a judgment of
the Bombay High Court in the case of Sujit Govind Dange vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, 2012(6) Mh.L.J. 289 to urge
that the powers under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act are extra
ordinary and the appropriate authority ought to have exercised
such power in larger public interest and in exceptional
circumstances, in particular when the said authority is of the
opinion that it is necessary or expedient to do so in public interest
by recording such reasons, otherwise such power should not be
exercised.
Dr. Sadanand M. Ingle vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 June, 2013
However, it is fairly stated that the High Court of
5
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.
Priykant Mokalal Kapadia vs State Of Gujarat & on 10 April, 2015
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1
submits that considering the tenor of the order passed by the
appropriate authority and the reasons so stated, it cannot be said
to be an order suspending the registration in public interest.
Relying upon the judgment of High Court of Gujarat passed on
6
16.4.2018 in Special Civil Application No. 9424 of 2014 in the
case of Priykant Mokalal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat, it is
urged that the power of Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act is
exceptional in nature and can be exercised only in public interest
after forming opinion and recording the reasons in this regard,
otherwise, such power ought not to be exercised.
1