SHYAM LAL THUKRAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT case is yet another glaring example of blatant misuse of process of law at the hands of an unscrupulous and chronic litigant, by way of instant writ petition, which is on the face of it frivolous, vexatious and belated, as the petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure P -11) after more than six and a half years and that too without there being any explanation for this long delay. A brief narration of essential facts would be required to unravel the controversy involved between the parties. Petitioner claims himself to be a retired Senior Medical Officer of State of Punjab. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that he worked as a Senior Medical Officer at Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda w.e.f. 01.05.2006. He also claims to have worked as Sub Divisional Appropriate Authority in view of notification dated 19.06.2001 (Annexure P -1), issued under the Pre -Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Technique (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act, for short). While working as Sub Divisional Appropriate Authority -cum -Senior Medical Officer, Talwandi Sabo, under PNDT Act, petitioner inspected the premises of Garg Ultrasound Scan Centre at Maur Mandi, District Bathinda, which was being run by respondent No. 3. Petitioner claims that he found grave irregularities being committed by respondent No. 3, at her above said Centre.

(2.) TAKING cognizance of the irregularities, petitioner seized the record of the said Centre. Respondent No. 3 was given opportunity of being heard on 10.05.2006. She could not give satisfactory explanation. Finally, petitioner cancelled the registration of the Ultrasound Centre of respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 26.05.2006. Respondent No. 3 filed appeal before the District Appropriate Authority which was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P -5). FIR No. 80 dated 09.09.2006 also came to be registered against respondent No. 3. So far as the criminal case arising out of this FIR is concerned, that issue is not involved herein.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against order dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure P -18), respondent No. 3 challenged the same before this Court as Annexure P -10 in CWP No. 5323 of 2012 (Dr. Kiran Garg v. State of Punjab and another). The writ petition was allowed by this Court vide detailed order dated 28.05.2013 (Annexure P -19). It was held by this Court that the order dated 12.01.2012, passed by the Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab, was an order without jurisdiction and the order dated 19.01.2007 passed by the State Appropriate Authority was revived.