DR. SANJIV KAUSHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by respondent no.2, by which his application, filed under Rule 8 of the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), for renewal of registration of his Ultrasound Clinic has been rejected in terms of Rule 18-A(4)(ii) of the Rules.

(2.) In brief, the petitioner is running a diagnostic centre at Sirsa under the name and style of City Diagnostic Centre, which was initially registered with respondent no.2 vide registration No.USSRS-02 dated 12.09.2001. The registration of the said centre was renewed from time to time but the same has lapsed on 11.09.2016. It is alleged by the petitioner that he was on vacation with his family from 03.11.201 to 18.11.2015. However, on 19.11.2015, a team from the office of the Civil Surgeon-cum-District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the "DAA"), along with SI Indraj Singh, visited his diagnostic centre and asked the petitioner to produce the PNDT register, OPD register and F-forms pertaining to the month of November 2015 and took away the aforesaid registers with them after preparing a spot memo. The said team again visited his diagnostic centre on 20.11.2015 and sealed all the four ultrasound machines of the petitioner and, thereafter, registration of the petitioner was suspended on 25.11.2015 on the allegations that ultrasound machines of the petitioner were being used by some unauthorized person, in connivance with him, while he was away for vacation and on the basis of which FIR No.870 dated 25.11.2015, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 23 and 29 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") Rules 9 and 18 of the Rules and Sections 420, 468, 471, 474, 120-B of the IPC was registered at Police Station City, Sirsa. The petitioner challenged the registration of FIR against him by way of CRM-M-10426-2016, in which filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 was stayed. It is further alleged that while the FIR was stayed, respondent no.3 filed a complaint against the petitioner and another bearing Complaint No.160 titled as "Dr. Suraj Bhan Kamboj v. Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal and another", in which the petitioner was summoned on 17.09.2016. These proceedings were also challenged by the petitioner by way of CRM-M-6362-2017 and proceedings therein were stayed by this Court on 07.03.2017.

(3.) It is submitted that in the meantime, since registration of the diagnostic centre of the petitioner expired on 11.09.2016, therefore, the petitioner applied for the renewal of registration vide application dated 12.08.2016, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 14.10.2016.