MAHENDRABHAI R TIWARI Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr Neeraj Soni, learned AGP waives service of Rule for the respondents. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court to challenge order dated 5th August 2007 passed by respondent No.2 whereby he has exercised the powers under Section 20(3) of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and has suspended the registration of the clinic of the petitioner with immediate effect. It is the say of the petitioner that he is having a clinic and a nursing home which is essentially run by his wife, Dr Urmilaben Tiwari in the city of Vadodara. It is his say that respondent No.2 without affording to him any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any show-cause notice passed order dated 5th August 2007 on the ground that some time in the year 2003-04 the petitioner's wife, Dr Urmilaben Tiwari did sonography on one Sunitaben, wife of Rajeshbhai to ascertain the sex of the child in the womb and thereby she has committed the offence under the provisions of Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. In view of the same the impugned order has been passed, which is a common order against five doctors including the present petitioner and the registration has been cancelled.

(3.) I have heard Mr AD Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr Neeraj Soni, learned AGP for the respondent. It is submitted by Mr Oza that the impugned order is bad in law and is in violation of the principles of natural justice since the petitioner has not been served with the notice required under sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act. It is his submission that the alleged incident is stated to have taken place in the year 2000. The impugned action is taken more than seven years thereafter and that too without hearing the petitioner. He has referred to the table given in the impugned order and drawn my attention to column 6 thereof wherein it is stated that the incident had taken place some time in the year 2002 or 2004 and has submitted that it is not the correct fact because it is the statement of the complainant Sunitaben that she was examined in the year 2000 and that is also stated by respondent No.2. He draws my attention to order dated 2.08.2007 whereby the respondent authority has ordered enquiry and in that order also it is stated that examination of Sunitaben was done in the year 2000. It is therefore submitted by him that the clinic of the petitioner, namely, Laxmi Maternity Nursing Home was started in the year 2002 and this could not have been done in the year 2000. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is passed without application of mind. As against that, Mr Neeraj Soni has submitted that in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(3) respondent No.2 is within his bounds to pass the impugned order without issuing notice to the petitioner. It is his submission that when the authority finds that it is expedient and in public interest it can pass such order without any delay and notice is not required to be issued. He has also submitted that there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of appeal and on that ground alone this petition is not required to be entertained.