Bombay High Court set aside high handed action of AA and desealed the Machine seized for 2 years merely on F Form irregularity.

The Division Bench of Hon. Bombay High Court has granted huge relief against seizure of Sonography Machines.

Case Details :
Dr. Ramesh Bole V/s. State of Mahrashtra & ors., WP No.2349/2017. (Aurngabad Bench)

Link :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/179321001/

Facts in short :
1. The Doctor challenged the order of suspension of registration of his Sonography Center as well as seizure of Sonography machine on the ground that the Action of AA was not valid and was inititated without application of mind.

2. The impugned actions were taken against the Doctor as mainly some of the F Forms were incomplete as it did not have signature of patient and Doctor. Moro ever, the patients who did not signed also delivered male/female babies in due course. The Doctor contended that there was "No Reason to believe" that seizure of sonography machine would furnish the evidence of commission of offense apart from these allegations, there were no other serious allegations. The Criminal action against the Doctor was also stayed by the High Court.

3. On the other hand the Govt. opposed the petition on the ground that infirmity in form would go to show the intention of the Petitioner in committing the offenses. The authorities were not responsible for pendency of the mater for 2 years.

Held :
1. The Division Bench after hearing of the parties allowed the petition and observed that the Authorities should have "reason to believe" that seized machine would furnish the evidence of commission of offense under the PCPNDT Act. 

2. IT further observed, "Reason to believe" or "reasonable belief" means coming to factual conclusion on the basis of information that a thing, condition, statement or a fact exists. Reason to believe contemplates an objective determination based on intelligent care and deliberation as distinguished from purely subjective consideration. 

3. The said expression is not synonymous to subjective satisfaction of the authority. It postulates belief and existence of reason for that belief. The belief has to be held in good faith. It cannot be a mere pretense. The reason for the belief must have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section.

4. The Court observed that the License is suspended for 2 years and the action was based on mere F Form irregularity and moreover the ladies also delivered male/female children in due course. However the Court observed that the finding of this case would not affect the criminal case pending.

The Division Bench came to the rescue of Doctor whose right to profession was halted for 2 years ! Who will compensate for it ? The Bombay High Court has already in many judgments have held that mere F Form irregularity should not invite the action. But its not happening in reality.  The main object of the Act is to cure the menace of female feticide. However if our society is not ready to change its medieval mindset of male child superiority - वंश का चिराग, any amount of Law will be of no use.
IF MEN ARE PURE, LAWS ARE USELESS,
IF MEN ARE CORRUPT, LAWS ARE BROKEN.

thanks and regards

Adv. Rohit Erande
Pune.©

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

#PCPNDT - Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Mere Pendency of a criminal case is not a ground to refuse the renewal of registration – Hon. P&H High Court, at Chandigarh  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE  © Case Details :  CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9312 OF 2020 Dr. Sanjiv Kaushal V/s. State of Haryana and others CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Facts in short : 1. The  Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa, Haryana-respondent No.2; order dated 23.04.2018 passed by the State Appropriate Authority, PNDT, Panchkula-respondent No.4 and order dated 11/14.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana-cum-State Appellate Authority, Health Department, on the ground that the request of the petitioner for renewal of registration under the PC & PNDT Rules, 1996 has been declined merely because of the pendency of a criminal case against ...
Read more

PCPNDT Act : Can USG be performed by even by MBBS after 6 months training ? : What are the effects of Hon. Supreme Court's order..

"Prima facie the judgment of the Delhi High Court has trenched upon an area of legislative policy"  The 3 judges bench of Hon. Supreme Court observed this while staying the judgment of  Hon. Delhi High Court. Hon. Delhi High Court .  Case details : Union of India V/s. Indian Radiological and Imaging Association of India & ors. SLP. Nos. 166657-59 of 2016. Interim Order dated :14th March, 2018 by the three judges Bench. Coram : Hon. Dipak Misra (the then Hon.C.J.I.), Hon. D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon. A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ. Order Link : https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/20683/20683_2016_Judgement_14-Mar-2018.pdf Facts in Short : 1. The Hon. Supreme Court was dealing with 2 sets of Petitions with 2 main questions. i.e. the Strict implementation of PCPNDT Act and the later petitions were relating to the challenge of Judgment of Hon. Delhi High Court in relation to 6 months training rule. 2. In first part of the Judgment Hon. Apex Co...
Read more

" The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. ©

 " The Machine which is registered under the PCPNDT Act cannot be carried to other place which is not registered" : Hon. Bombay High Court. Adv. Rohit Erande. © In short, One Machine - One Place - One Registration. In its recently reported judgment of Dr. Deepak Sane V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2017(1) Mh.L.J.379, W.P. no.2995/2015, The Division Bench at Nagpur held so.. Facts in short : 1. The petitioner is the leading Medical Practitioner in Nagpur and dealing exclusively with Heart Treatment. He is required to use the 2D Echo Colour Doppler Machine for Treating his patients and for treating the patients he requires to visit the ICCU at different Hospitals. 2. IT was the case of the petitioner that he needy patients who cannot come to his clinic, for them he has to carry his 2D Echo machine, which is duly registered under the provisions of PCPNDT Act.Therefore he applied to the concerned authorities for getting permission to move the said machine at different places, but sa...
Read more