RADHA NIRMAL Vs. DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, the limited challenge, raised in the writ petition is that: before passing the order dated 17.11.2011 neither was a show cause notice issued nor was the petitioner given an opportunity of being heard. It is pertinent to note that order dated 17.11.2001 was passed by the District Appropriate Authority. This order was carried in appeal, which was dismissed by the State Appropriate Authority vide order dated 15.3.2012. Both orders are impugned in the present writ petition. It may be noted that respondent No. 1 in paragraphs 6 and 7 of its counter affidavit has adverted to the fact that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner at Rural Health Centre, which is owned and managed by the petitioner on 14.10.2011, followed by a personal hearing on 18.10.2011 and 4.11.2011.

(2.) Therefore, the challenge to the impugned order arises in the context of the aforesaid assertions of the petitioner. Briefly, the challenge is laid in the background of the following facts:

(3.) On 1.5.2002, the petitioner was issued a certificate of registration bearing No. 909 for a period of five (5) years ending on 30.4.2007 under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as PNDT Act).