MOOLCHAND KHAIRATI RAM HOSPITAL & AYURVEDIC RESEA Vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GNCTD AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 20 (1) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 to the extent it is relevant provides that the Appropriate Authority may either on a complaint or of its own motion, issue a notice to a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, to show cause why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled for the reasons specified in the said notice. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act provides that if, after giving a hearing the said centre, laboratory or clinic and having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee, the Appropriate Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, it may suspend its registration for such period as it may think fit or may also cancel such registration. This will be without prejudice to the criminal action which can be taken against such laboratory, centre or clinic for contravening the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act is in the nature of an exception to the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (1) & (2) above and empowers the Appropriate Authority to suspend the registration of the centre, laboratory or clinic as the case may be without issuing a notice in case it is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is necessary or expedient to suspend such registration in the public interest.

(2.) The Appropriate Authority vide notice dated 26.11.2013, which the petitioner claims to have received on 30.11.2013, referred to certain breaches of the provisions of the Act and/or Rules and required the petitioner to show cause with the direction to stop doing Ultrasoundgraphy until further orders. The breaches stated in the said notice pertain primarily to the maintenance of the record of Ultrasound test.

(3.) As noted earlier, the registration of a centre, laboratory or clinic, without following the procedure prescribed under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 20 of the Act, could have been suspended only if the Appropriate Authority was satisfied that it was necessary or expedient to do so in the public interest. The reasons on which the Appropriate Authority comes to form such an opinion are required to be disclosed in the order itself. However, the impugned notice dated 26.11.2013 contains no such reason.