- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the appropriate authority deciding an appeal against suspension of licence for installation of a sonogram in the petitioner's premises under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 ("P.N.D.T. Act" for short). The impugned order came to be passed by the State Appellate Authority acting through one of its members Sh. Ram Lal Gupta. The facts giving rise to the appeal in the present writ petition are as follows. Dr. Jatinder Gambhir, the petitioner, was the sole proprietor of Angad Scan and Diagnostic and she had a nursing home attached to the Diagnostic Centre in the same building at 23-C, Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. The petitioner had registered the ultrasound clinic on 04.07.2001 and the registration had been renewed from time to time and valid at the relevant time of inspection on 30.06.2006. The contention was that on a raid conducted by a team from the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana comprising of Dr. Gurbinder Kaur, Medical Officer and Smt. Darshana Sharma, Staff Nurse on 31.07.2008, it was found that a patient, who was profusely bleeding was interrogated, who said that she had already two daughters and she was being admitted for termination of pregnancy. At that time when the inspecting team had bolted the door from inside for taking history of the patient, there was knocking from the outside and suddenly, the petitioner broke a glass door and opened it and that on seeing the inspecting team, she tried to flee from the place. It was reported that the other higher authorities namely Dr. Reena Sandhu and Dr. Y.P.Mehta had arrived and carried out further investigation. The police had been informed and when the patient had been taken to the hospital elsewhere, it was found that she was bleeding profusely per vagina and the uterus was bulky about 12 to 14 wks in size. That was according to the prosecution agency that the termination of pregnancy had been originally attempted after taking sex determination, which was suggestive of violation of PNDT Act.
(2.) An application had been given by the District Family Welfare Officer to the SHO, Police Station, Sarabha Nagar for registering a FIR against the petitioner and her husband APS Gambhir and upon receipt of the complaint and after registration of the FIR, the petitioner's husband was arrested. A show cause notice had been issued subsequently under Section 20(1) of the PNDT Act to the effect that the patient herself had admitted that she had undergone ultrasound scan test in the hospital and she had been informed that it was a female and therefore, subsequently she got herself admitted to have the female fetus aborted. It also records the fact that the patient had been subsequently shifted to the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for further clinical management where only the placenta was lying in the cervical canal and that was removed along with the piece of cord attached. It had been contended before the Appellate Authority that the show cause notice had not been given and the Appellate Authority has observed that the petitioner had been given an option of either be given an opportunity to file an objection to the show cause notice for a fresh consideration by the District Authority or whether the petitioner wanted the prosecution of the appeal on the given material. The impugned order states that the petitioner after consulting with her husband and her counsel had invited the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits after considering the material on record. The objection before the Appellate Authority had been that by the first order dated 17.09.2008, the registration of the ultra scanning centre had been cancelled under Section 20(2) and the show cause notice, which had been issued under Section 20(1) caused suspension of the registration. The order of suspension of registration passed on 04.08.2008 and the subsequent order canceling the registration on 17.09.2008 amounted to double jeopardy.
(3.) The Appellate Court has reasoned that the order passed on 04.08.2008 under Section 29(3) after show cause notice was interim in nature and the order passed suspending registration cannot take away the power of the appropriate Authority to cancel the licence itself. Taking up the objection that the procedure prescribed under Section 20(1) had also been breached by the fact that the suspension of registration was done on 04.08.2008 itself without giving any opportunity to reply to the show cause notice, the Appellate Authority has reasoned that Section 20(3) specifically provided for suspension of licence for the reasons to be recorded in writing and that in pubic interest to pass the order without issuing any notice. To the show cause notice itself, there had been no objection filed by the petitioner. To the extent to which the facts are recorded by the Appellate Authority, I would take it that the petitioner had not filed the objection to the show cause notice and she was only pressing for the consideration of the appeal on merits before the Appellate Authority.;