#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 him under the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 (for short, “the 1994 Act”). 

2. It was contended that the impugned action of the concerned authorities is against the judgments passed by various Courts, including Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.2400 of 2017 (Dr.Kanwal Raj Vs. Union of India and others) decided on 27.02.2017. The Division Bench relied upon the judgments of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.4478 of 2015 (Maharashtra State Branch of Iria Msbiria, Mumbai Vs. Union of India and others), decided on 05.05.2015 and in a subsequent writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.6979 of 2015 (Dr.Sudhir Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) decided on 13.08.2015, to conclude that the competent authority cannot reject an application submitted for renewal of registration under the 1994 Act merely on the ground of pendency of a case under the said Act. With these similar issues the Petition was filed. 

3. The Govt. Counsel, states that the petitioner has an alternative remedy against the impugned orders. He, however, was unable to distinguish the ratio of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.Kanwal Raj's case (Supra).

Held : 


4. The Court keeping in view the law as has been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Dr.Kanwal Raj's case (Supra), held that the impugned orders, which have been passed by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively, are not in accordance with law and, thus, cannot sustain and are accordingly set- aside by allowing the writ petition. 

5. The Court further issued Direction  to the District Appropriate Authority, Sirsa-respondent No.2 to consider the application, which has been submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the license under the 1994 Act and take a decision thereon within a period of one month from today by giving hearing to the petitioner and passing a speaking order. The personal hearing be granted to the petitioner, who shall appear before respondent No.2 on 15.07.2020.

Although this is not a recent case per se, I could get it few days back. The law laid down herein is applicable and may be helpful to many Doctors who might be suffering from similar issues or god forbid if in future. 


Thanks and Regards

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

Pune. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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