PRAKASH PATEL Vs. STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.9 of 2011 filed by the petitioner vide communication dated 12.8.2011. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the registration of the clinic of the petitioner has been cancelled permanently. The petitioner has challenged both the above orders on the ground that the same are absolutely, unjust, improper, incorrect, malafide, prejudicial and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Pre -natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Section) Rules, 1996.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is possessing the qualification of MD/DGO and is practicing in the field of gynaecology and obstetrics since 1982. The hospital of the petitioner is duly registered under the PNDT Act and was given registration certificate bearing Registration No.GJ -13 -0078 -AAA -2007. On 02.04.2011 the petitioner addressed a complaint to DCB, Surat alleging that several persons in the name of NGO are involved in blackmailing the doctors. On 16.04.2011, the officer of the respondent No.2 visited the premises of the petitioner but could not find any material object/record with regard to sex determination of the foetus. However, the said Authority seized office copies of Form -F for the period from 15.07.2009 to 03.02.2010 only with a view to find fault with the petitioner. On 18.4.2011, show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner which was duly replied on 29.4.2011. On 23.5.2011, the respondent No.2 Authority in defiance of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the mandatory provisions of PC and PNDT Act especially Section 20(2) cancelled the registration of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said decision the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.1 Appropriate Authority. Against the said decision dated 23.5.2011 the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 Authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 12.8.2011. Being aggrieved with the said the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) Heard Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Bharat Vyas, learned AGP for respondent State and Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Advocate for the respondent No.2.