Case Note & Summary
The matter before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, arose from a writ petition challenging orders passed under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. The petitioner, a partnership firm running a genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic at Nanded, was registered with the appropriate authority on 19.05.2018, valid until 18.05.2023. On 26.06.2019, an authorised officer inspected the hospital and noticed several record-keeping discrepancies—column 12 of Form-F not filled by Dr. Chanda Bastewad, signature discrepancies, missing patient signatures and dates on consent forms, incomplete entries in columns 11 and 17 of Form-F, unavailable sonography registration register, irregular monthly sonography reports, and an unpaginated uncertified register. These were detailed in a show-cause notice dated 28.06.2019. The petitioner replied on 06.07.2019, denying violations and claiming diligent compliance with records and online Form-F filing. The District Appropriate Authority passed an order on 20.09.2019 suspending the registration certificate. On 21.09.2019, it drew a spot panchanama, sealed and seized a sonography machine (Aeroscan Digital colour model CD25, registration no. USG/NWCMC), and handed it over to Dr. Nilesh Bastewad under acknowledgment. The petitioner's appeal to the State Appropriate Authority was dismissed on 07.12.2019, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that the inspection was illegal and mala fide, that no offence of sex selection or sex determination was alleged or proven, that the appropriate authority lacked reason to believe that the machine would furnish evidence of an offence, and that Rule 12 search and seizure procedure was not complied with because no list was prepared or reasons recorded. The respondents argued that they acted within statutory powers, that the explanation was vague, and that the deficiencies amounted to breaches of mandatory provisions; they also pointed to a pending criminal case. The court extensively examined relevant provisions: Section 17 outlining functions of appropriate authority; Section 20 empowering suspension or cancellation of registration after show cause, advisory committee consultation, and hearing, and allowing suspension without notice in public interest upon recording reasons; Section 30 permitting entry, search, seizure, and sealing on reason to believe an offence has been committed; Rule 12 prescribing detailed search and seizure procedure requiring two independent witnesses, preparation of a duplicate list, signature of pages, and acknowledgment; and Rule 18-A(8) requiring regular inspections every ninety days with preserved reports and acknowledgments. The court also enumerated mandatory obligations of centres under Section 3, including registration, employment of qualified persons, restriction of services to registered places, and prohibition of sex selection. The judgment excerpt ends at paragraph 19 while enumerating those duties; the final analysis and conclusive order are not contained in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Search and Seizure - Reason to Believe and Compliance with Rule 12 - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Section 30; Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, Rule 12 - Court examined statutory requirement that appropriate authority must have reason to believe an offence has been committed before entering, searching, seizing or sealing material. Held that Rule 12 prescribes mandatory procedure of two independent witnesses, duplicate list, signatures, and acknowledgment to ensure transparency and accountability (Paras 14-15). B) Regulatory Law - Cancellation and Suspension of Registration - Power and Conditions under Section 20 - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Section 20 - Court noted that appropriate authority may suspend or cancel registration after show cause, hearing, and advisory committee advice; it may also suspend without notice in public interest only upon recording reasons in writing. Held that statutory preconditions must be satisfied before exercising suspension powers (Para 13). C) Healthcare Regulation - Duties of Genetic Clinics and Centres - Mandatory Obligations under Section 3 - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, Section 3 - Court enumerated obligations including mandatory registration, employment of qualified persons, conducting techniques only at registered places, and prohibition on sex selection. Held that breach of these duties constitutes an offence under the Act and Rules (Para 19). D) Administrative Law - Inspection and Supervision - Periodic Inspection Requirements - Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules, Rule 18-A(8) - Court referred to requirement of regular inspections of all registered facilities once every ninety days, preservation of inspection reports as documentary evidence, and provision of copy with acknowledgment. Held that these provisions ensure continuous regulatory oversight (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders of the District Appropriate Authority suspending the petitioner's registration and sealing its sonography machine were sustainable under Sections 20 and 30 of the PC-PNDT Act and Rule 12 of the Rules, particularly whether the authority had reason to believe an offence was committed, whether the search and seizure procedure was complied with, and whether the alleged record-keeping discrepancies amounted to breach of mandatory provisions.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in provided excerpt; judgment text ends while enumerating statutory duties at paragraph 19 before final analysis and order.
Law Points
- Reason to believe requirement before search and seizure under Section 30 PC-PNDT Act
- Mandatory procedure under Rule 12 for search seizure and inventory
- Power to suspend registration under Section 20 after show cause and hearing
- Suspension without notice in public interest requires recorded reasons
- Duties of genetic clinics under Section 3
- Periodic inspection under Rule 18-A(8)
