SURESH MANJIBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court seeking the relief as under :

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on 9-4-2006, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice (Annexure "A") after the place of the petitioner was visited and inspected in presence of two independent witnesses namely (i) Ishwarji Laxmanji Chavda, aged 48 years, Deputy Mamlatdar, Chitnis Branch, and (ii) Shri Gopibhai Dhanabhai Gamar, aged 41 years, Deputy Mamlatdar, Chitnis Branch, Collector Office, Banaskantha, Palanpur along with 18 persons of the Health Department of the District Panchayat, Banashkantha. In the notice, various irregularities and breaches of the provision of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for brevity), are mentioned. It is also recorded in the notice that Registration holder Dr. Suresh M. Prajapati, i.e. the petitioner herein, was not present in the hospital, and therefore, in the presence of his representative case writer Shri Laxmanbhai Karsanbhai Patel and in presence of Shri Jignesh M. Raval, working as a Pharmacist in "Simant Medical Store", situated in the campus of the hospital, record, register and the hospital was inspected/ examined. Looking to the irregularities and the breaches, including that of change of address, without permission of the authority, 'change of machine', as in the application for registration under P.N.D.T. Act dated 7-11-2002, "Wipro GE Logic Alpha 100-M.P" Sonography Machine was mentioned, whereas "LT Medical Altra Sonography" machine was found in the consulting room of the petitioner. This change of machine was not intimated to the appropriate authority. It is stated in the notice that under Rule 13 of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1996, within three days, appropriate authority is required to be intimated such change. The notice also called upon the petitioner to intimate the authorities as to where the earlier machine is. It is mentioned in the notice that provisions of Rules 17(1), 17(2), 1(1), 9(4), 5(1), 9(8) and 13 are noticed to have been breached. The petitioner was granted three days' time to file his explanation.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that, on the same day, i.e. 9-4-2006, the appropriate authority under the P.N.D.T. Act passed the order and suspended the registration of the petitioner resorting to the provisions of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 20 of the Act.