BRIJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order, as legal the issue involved is identical. The question is as to whether subsequent to the order passed by the State Level Appropriate Authority in favour of the petitioners under Rule 19 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996' for brevity) suo moto cognizance by the Appellate Authority thereafter could be taken under Section 21 of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred in short as 'the Act of 1994') to upset the order of the State Level Appropriate Authority ('SLAA' in short) without as much as an opportunity of hearing to the successful party before the SLAA.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a practicing Doctor in Medicine and runs his own private Hospital, where he inter alia conducts ultra sonography. One Rajan Choudhary, Secretary, N.G.O. Shikshit Rozgar Kendra Prabandhak Samiti, Jhunjhunu furnished information to the Authorities under the Act of 1994 that the petitioner was conducting ultra sonography contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1994. On the information received, the District Collector, Jhunjhunu constituted a district inspection party consisting of five members under his order dated 17th November, 2009 to carry out a surprise inspection at the Hospital of the petitioner. The inspection of the Hospital of the petitioner took place on 13th December, 2009 and appears to have caught the petitioner in an act of conducting ultra sonography of decoy pregnant woman sent by it and charging a fee for disclosing the sex of foetus. The employees of the petitioner also appears to have made statements about the petitioner being engaged in unauthorized pre-conceptional sex determination contrary to the Act of 1994.

(3.) In these circumstances, the Deputy Chief Medical and Health Officer (Family Welfare) Jhunjhunu passed an order on 14th January, 2010 by which the registration of the genetic clinic of the petitioner with regard to carrying out ultra sonography test was cancelled. An appeal by the petitioner against the order dated 14th January, 2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Appropriate Authority was filed. Vide order dated 5th April, 2010, the District Collector and District Appropriate Authority (PCPNDT), Jhunjhunu rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. A further second appeal was laid by the petitioner before the SLAA. Oddly the SLAA vide its order dated 25th June, 2010 allowed the appeal of the petitioner for alleged contravention of Section 20(3) of the Act of 1994 and the specious ground that reasons of the cancellation of registration of the petitioner were not recorded as mandated by law. The SLAA overlooked the fact that the petitioner was caught red handed conducting ultra sonography on a decoy pregnant woman and disclosing sex of foetus. Consequent to the order dated 25th June, 2010, the petitioner stood exonerated of wrong doings and contravention of the Act of 1994 as found in the course of inspection conducted on 13th December, 2009 and the order dated 14th January, 2010 in the first instance.