Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

{1}

wp697915.odt

C
ou

rt

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREOFBOMBAY
BENCHATAURANGABAD
WRITPETITIONNO.6979OF2015

Dr.Sudhirs/oMahadeoraoNimakar,
age:42years,Occ:MedicalPractitioner,
R/oGhamodiaFactoryArea,
NearDoctorslane,
Nanded,
Tq.&DistrictNanded.
Petitioner

ig
h

Versus

01TheStateofMaharashtra,
throughitsSecretary,
DepartmentofPublicHealth
andFamilyWelfare,
Mantralaya,Mumbai32.

ba
y

02MedicalHealthOfficer/
AppropriateAuthority,
MunicipalCorporation,Nanded,
Tq.&DistrictNanded.

Respondents

om

Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar,advocateforthepetitioner
Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar,A.G.P.forRespondentNo.1.
Mr.R.K.Ingole,advocateforRespondentNo.2.

CORAM:R.M.BORDE&
P.R.BORA,JJ.
DATE:13thAugust,2015
ORALJUDGMENT(PerR.M.Borde,J.):
1

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and

heardfinallybyconsentoflearnedCounselforrespectiveparties.
2

The petitioner is a Radiologist and is operating

SonographyCentrebynameSaketDiagnosticCentreatNanded.

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2015 11:38:37 :::

{2}
wp697915.odt

rt

ThepetitionerwasissuedRegistrationCertificateforoperatingthe
Centre since 2005 and validity of the Registration expired on

C
ou

28.06.2015. Thepetitioner,assuch,tenderedanapplicationfor

renewal of Registration within contemplation of Rule 8 of


PreconceptionandPrenatalDiagnosticTechniques(Prohibitionof
SexSelection)Act,1994(hereinafterreferredtoas'Rulesof1994').
Theapplicationtenderedbythepetitionerhasbeendealtwithby
theappropriateauthority,who,byhisorderdated04.07.2015,was

ig
h

pleasedtorejectthesame.

It is not a matter of dispute that First Information

Reporthasbeenlodgedagainstthepetitionerforallegedviolation

oftheRulesof1994andfailuretomaintainrecordinproperform.
InpursuancetolodgingofFirstInformationReport,criminalcase
isregisteredandsameispendingconsiderationbeforetheJudicial

ba
y

Magistrate,FirstClass,Nanded.
4

ThisCourt,whiledealingwithWritPetitionNo.4478

om

of 2015, presented by the Maharashtra State Branch of IRIA


MSBIRIA, Mumbai against Union of India and others, has
observed,onthebasisofstatementmadebytheAssistantSolicitor
General for Unionof India that, Rule 18A (4)(ii) of the Rules of
1994, incorporated with effect from 28.01.2015, shall not be
construed as total prohibition on the appropriate authority to
receive an application for renewal or fresh registration. The
relevant rule imposes restriction on theappropriateauthority to
receiveapplicationforrenewalorfreshregistration.Inviewofthe
clarificationmadebytheUnionofIndia,itisobligatoryonthepart
ofappropriateauthoritytoreceiveapplicationsforregistrationand

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2015 11:38:37 :::

{3}
wp697915.odt

rt

renewal of registration in spite of pendency of criminal case or


lodgingofFirstInformationReportagainsttheconcerneddoctoror

C
ou

DiagnosticCentre.

Theapplicationreceivedforrenewalofregistrationhas

tobedealtwithinaccordancewithRule8oftheRules. Rule8
providesthattheappropriateauthorityshall,afterholdinginquiry
andaftersatisfyingitselfthattheapplicanthascompliedwithall

ig
h

therequirementsoftheActandRulesandhavingregardtothe
advice of the Advisory Committee, renew the certificate of
registration,asspecifiedinFormBforafurtherperiodoffiveyears
fromthedateofexpiryofcertificateofregistrationearliergranted.

Subrule (3) of Rule 8 provides that if, after enquiry and after
givinganopportunityofbeingheardtotheapplicantandhaving
regardtothe advice of the Advisory Committee, the Appropriate

ba
y

Authorityissatisfiedthattheapplicanthasnotcompliedwiththe
requirementsoftheActandtherules,itshall,forreasonstobe
recordedinwriting,rejecttheapplicationforrenewalofcertificate

om

ofregistrationandcommunicatesuchrejectiontotheapplicantas
specifiedinFormC.
6

In the instant matter, it does not appear that the

appropriate authority has taken decision having regard to the


adviceoftheadvisorycommitteenorhasextendedanopportunity
ofbeingheardtothepetitionerascontemplatedbysubrule(3)of
Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. There are absolutely no reasons
recorded by the appropriate authority while rejecting the
applicationtenderedbythepetitionerforrenewalofregistration.
The sole ground, disclosed from the statement recorded in the

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2015 11:38:37 :::

{4}
wp697915.odt

rt

order,thatacriminalcaseispendingagainstthepetitioner,may
notbeaonlyvalidgroundforrefusaltograntrenewalofcertificate

C
ou

ofregistrationandassuch,thisaspectshallhavetobedealtwith
inconsonancewiththedirectionsissuedbythisCourtpermitting
theappropriateauthoritytoentertainapplicationsforrenewalof
registrationorforfreshregistrationinspiteofincorporatingRule
18A(4)(ii)intheRulesof1994.Inouropinion,merependencyof
criminalcaseorlodgingofFirstInformationReportitselfmaynot

ig
h

constituteagroundforrefusaltograntrenewalofregistration.
In view of above, order passed by the appropriate

authorityrefusingtograntrenewalofregistrationbyorderdated

04.07.2015, is quashed and set aside and the matter stands


remittedbacktotheappropriateauthorityforreconsiderationin
accordance with provisions of the Act and Rules framed

ba
y

thereunder. The appropriate authority, after extending an


opportunity of hearing, decide the application presented by
petitionerforrenewalofregistration,asexpeditiouslyaspossible,

om

preferablywithinaperiodoffourweeksfromtoday.Thepetitioner
shall cause appearance before the appropriate authority on 19 th
August, 2015, and as such, no separate notice, requiring his
presencebeforetheappropriateauthority,shallbenecessary.
8

Ruleisaccordinglymadeabsolute. Thereshallbeno

orderastocosts.

P.R.BORA
JUDGE
adb/wp697915

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE

::: Downloaded on - 22/08/2015 11:38:37 :::