SANJIV KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure P-5) passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa, Haryana-respondent No.2; order dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-11) passed by the State Appropriate Authority, PNDT, Panchkula-respondent No.4 and order dated 11/14.01.2019 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana-cum-State Appellate Authority, Health Department, on the ground that the request of the petitioner for renewal of registration under the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 has been declined merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against him under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 (for short, "the 1994 Act"). This, counsel for the petitioner contends, is against the judgments passed by various Courts, including Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2400 of 2017 (Dr. Kanwal Raj Vs. Union of India and others) decided on 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-8). He contends that the Division Bench of this Court has relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4478 of 2015 (Maharashtra State Branch of Iria Msbiria, Mumbai Vs. Union of India and others), decided on 05.05.2015 and in a subsequent writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.6979 of 2015 (Dr. Sudhir Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) decided on 13.08.2015, to conclude that the competent authority cannot reject an application submitted for renewal of registration under the 1994 Act merely on the ground of pendency of a case under the said Act. He, thus, contends that the writ petition deserves to be allowed by setting-aside the impugned orders.

(2.) Notice of motion.

(3.) On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice and states that the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the impugned orders. He, however, was unable to distinguish the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Kanwal Rai's case (Supra).