DIPAK RAJKUMAR KHILWANI Vs. SUB APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is before this Court in a petition under Articles 14,19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of respondent No.1 in the following factual background:-

(2.) It is the grievance on the part of the petitioner that respondent No.1 came to the clinic of petitioner on 03.10.2017 pursuant to the said letter of respondent no.2 of 08.09.2017, without any intimation and instead of carrying out the inspection, as instructed by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 started blaming the petitioner and when he did not succumb to the pressure, he started inspecting the sonography machine. At that time, Dr. Anil Baranda, Gynecologist, had come with his wife Dr. Gayatri Baranda. Respondent No.2 noticed that the wife of Dr.Baranda is pregnant and therefore the officer insisted the petitioner to demonstrate the functioning of the machine. The petitioner not having realized that this was a trap of respondent No.1 took photographs of Dr.Gayatri Baranda, who was lying on the table and therefore, the presence of the lady is evident.

(3.) Notice came to be issued on 03.10.2017 seeking explanation of the present petitioner within 02 days as to why registration of the clinic be not cancelled and seal be not applied to the machine.