Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Rajender Amirchand Sujanyal (a gynecologist and owner of Stree Hospital) and Dr. Shripad Krishna Inamdar (a visiting sonologist), challenged the order dated 6th October 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, dismissing their Criminal Revision Application No.695 of 2014. The revision was against the order of the Appropriate Authority under the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) suspending the registration of the petitioners' sonography centre. The background facts are that on 21st June 2012, Dr. L.P. Gophane, a Medical Officer delegated with powers under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act, inspected the sonography centre. He found that the sonography reports were signed by the hospital owner (Petitioner No.1) and not by the sonologist (Petitioner No.2) who performed the scan. He seized 15 reports, 'F' forms, and referral chits. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, and after considering their reply, the Appropriate Authority suspended the registration under Section 20(2) of the Act. The petitioners filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed. The High Court framed the issues: (i) whether the inspection and seizure were valid, (ii) whether the signing of reports by the hospital owner constituted a violation, and (iii) whether the suspension order was justified. The court held that the delegation of powers to Dr. Gophane was valid and the inspection was lawful. However, the court found that the PCPNDT Act and Rules do not mandate that the sonography report must be signed only by the sonologist who performed the scan. The hospital owner, being a qualified gynecologist, could sign the reports. The court noted that the inspection report itself recorded no violation of the Act except the observation about report signing. The court held that the alleged contravention was not a violation of the Act. Consequently, the suspension order was arbitrary and without proper application of mind. The court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and the suspension order, and directed the restoration of the registration of the sonography centre.
Headnote
A) PCPNDT Act - Suspension of Registration - Section 20, Section 23 - Show Cause Notice - The Appropriate Authority suspended the registration of the petitioners under Section 20(2) of the PCPNDT Act, 1994, alleging that the sonography reports were signed by the hospital owner instead of the sonologist. The court held that the suspension was invalid as the show cause notice did not specify the alleged violation and the authority failed to consider that the hospital owner was a qualified gynecologist and the signing of reports did not contravene the Act. (Paras 2-10) B) PCPNDT Act - Inspection and Seizure - Section 30 - Delegation of Powers - The inspection was conducted by Dr. L.P. Gophane, who was delegated powers by the Commissioner under Section 30. The court held that the delegation was valid and the inspection was lawful, but the seizure of documents was not justified as there was no violation of the Act. (Paras 4-6) C) PCPNDT Act - Report Signing - Rule 9(4), Rule 10, Rule 11 - The court interpreted that the PCPNDT Act and Rules do not require that the sonography report must be signed only by the sonologist who performed the scan. The hospital owner, being a qualified gynecologist, could sign the reports. The court held that the alleged contravention was not a violation of the Act. (Paras 7-9) D) PCPNDT Act - Suspension Order - Section 20(2) - The suspension order was passed without proper application of mind and without considering the explanation of the petitioners. The court held that the order was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension of registration of the petitioners under the PCPNDT Act was valid when the sonography reports were signed by the hospital owner (a gynecologist) instead of the sonologist who performed the scan, and whether the inspection and seizure were conducted by a duly authorized officer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 6th October 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, and set aside the suspension order. The court directed the restoration of the registration of the sonography centre.
Law Points
- PCPNDT Act
- 1994
- Section 30
- Section 4(3)
- Section 5
- Section 17
- Section 20
- Section 23
- Rule 9(4)
- Rule 10
- Rule 11
- delegation of powers
- inspection
- seizure
- suspension of registration
- show cause notice
- natural justice
- report signing
- sonologist
- gynecologist
- 'F' form
- monthly returns
- maintenance of records
