KANWAL RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 3(3)(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules'). Further prayer is for quashing the communication dated 6.12.2016 (Annexure P-9), vide which the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of his certificate of registration has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with reference to challenge to the vires of Rule 3(3)(3) of the Rules with liberty to file a fresh one for the same relief independently.

(3.) As regards challenge to the communication dated 6.12.2016 is concerned, the submission is that the application filed by the petitioner was returned by the authority to the petitioner in terms of Rule 18-A(4)(ii) of the Rules, without considering the same on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In fact, the stand taken by the Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing before Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4478 of 2015-Maharashtra State Branch of IRIA MSBIRIA, Mumbai v. Union of India and others was that pendency of a criminal case will not debar any applicant to file the application for renewal, as it is obligatory on any appropriate authority to receive the application for registration. The applications so received are to be considered in accordance with Rule 8(3) of the Rules after enquiry and affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant. If the application is to be rejected, the reasons have to be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant in form 'C'.