CHITRA AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be a practising Doctor who is having an Ultrasound Centre and X-ray Clinic known as Chitra Ultrasound Centre at 5- New Road, Dehradun. The said Ultrasound Centre has been registered under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagonostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for short PNDT Act). According to the petitioner, the registration certificate bears No. A/CMO/16 dated 10-12-2001. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the registration of the petitioner's Ultrasound Centre was first suspended and then cancelled illegally. As per Annexure 1 order dated 23-2-2005, the registration was suspended under Section 20 (3) of the PNDT Act by the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun who is the Appropriate Authority at the district level. The petitioner was also asked to show cause why the registration should not be cancelled. In reply to Annexure 1 notice/ suspension order, the petitioner submitted Annexure 2 explanation. However, as per Annexure 3 order dated 14-3-2005, the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun cancelled the registration of the Ultrasound Centre under Section 20 (2) of the PNDT Act. Against Annexure 3 order, the petitioner filed Annexure 4 appeal before the Appropriate Authority at State Level. But the appellate authority, as per Annexure 5 communication dated 27-6-2005, informed the petitioner that his appeal cannot be entertained in view of the criminal proceedings pending before Court. Aggrieved by Annexures 1, 3 and 5, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for quashing Annexures 1 and 3.

(2.) We have heard Mr. B. P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. P. Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttaranchal who accepted notice for the respondents.

(3.) The challenge against Annexure 1 order dated 23-2-2005 has become infructuous, as the registration has subsequently been cancelled as per Annexure 3 order dated 14-3-2005. Once the registration has been cancelled, there is no need for considering whether the suspension of registration was legal or not. Hence, we are not inclined to consider the legality or correctness of Annexure 1 order which has merged with Annexure 3 order cancelling the registration.