" #PCPNDT - The Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation is not the Appropriate Authority" -hon. Bombay High Court. :Adv. Rohit Erande.©

  #PCPNDT - The Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation is not the Appropriate Authority" "Allowing continuation of the said criminal complaint filed by an unauthorised authority would be abuse of the process of the Court apart from waste of time and public money. -Hon. Bombay High Court 

 -Adv. Rohit Erande.©


Case Details :

Dr. Anita Chavan V/.s Appropriate Authority, PCPNDT, Nagpur

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 174 OF 2018, decided on 12/08/2021

Before : Hon. Manish Pitale J.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8421693/

Facts in short.

1. the Petitioner Doctor  sought quashing of a criminal complaint case pending against her in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nagpur. The proceedings was intimated based on the inspection alleged to have been held on 16/07/2012 and the allegations were :

(a) Bare Act of the PCPNDT Act was not available at the reception of the premises for being made available to the patients on demand.
(b) Form "F" was not filled properly as column 11 was left blank and purpose of sonography was not mentioned in some forms.
(c) In column 8, the weeks of pregnancy were not mentioned and that name and registration number of the doctor was also not mentioned on the MNC form.
(d) The registration certificate issued by the Corporation was not displayed on a conspicuous place in the clinic / centre.
(e) Forms "F" and "G" under the PCPNDT Act were not properly filled, thereby showing violation of the provisions.


2. Pursuant to the said inspection , the respondent No.1 claiming to be the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act issued a show-cause notice to the applicant. On 24/07/2012, inspite the applicant submitting  her explanation,. , the respondent as the Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act filed a criminal complaint against the applicant under Section 28 of the Act, which was challenged vide this Petition.

3. It was contended by the Petitioner that as per the  Notification dated 16/10/2007, issued by the State Government under Section  17(2) of the PCPNDT Act, Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation is not one such officer and therefore the proceedings should fail. It is pertinent to note that, the Respondent could not deny said notification.

Held ;

1. The hon. Court relied upon the said Notification and observed that Since the respondent in the present case being Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation is not one of the Officers appointed as an Appropriate Authority, the Court obviously cannot take cognizance as the entire criminal proceeding has been initiated by a person not authorized to do so.

It is the cardinal principal of Law that "If anything is required to be done in a particular way by the law, then said thing should be done in the same manner, else should not be done at all". 

2. His Lordship relied upon the earlier division Bench judgment of Bombay High Court, in the Criminal Writ Petition No. 250 of 2015 Dr.Payal w/o Shreekant Chobe vs. State of Maharashtra and others, which was the identical case and wherein all the relevant provisions of the Act and the Notifications were discussed in detail. In the said case, the division bench held that allowing continuation of the said criminal complaint filed by an unauthorised authority would be abuse of the process of the Court apart from waste of time and public money. 

It was held that,  the applicant is placed in identical circumstances and that therefore, the present application also deserves to be allowed and the Petition was allowed and the Criminal Compliant was quashed. 

it is yet again great judgement and the Doctor got the relief though after 9 years. It is really very strange that inspite of the fact that the Law is very clear as to who can be the AA and who cannot be, still why such mistakes are being made by the Govt. ? I think the Trial Court should not have taken the cognizance of the compliant itself.


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