LexDISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER versus JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 3 S.C.R. 60 : 2024 INSC 173 District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3831 of 2024) 04 March 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 for cancellation, suspension or suspension in public interest respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act. Headnotes Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2) & (3) – Interpretation of: Held: Bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that s.20(1) & (2) deals with both suspension or cancellation as the case may be, while s.20(3) only deals with suspension in public interest – The authority, while exercising power under sub- sections (1) & (2) of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act, may act suo moto or on a complaint and after notice to the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for the reasons to show cause why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled, and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee and on being satisfied that there was a breach of the provisions of the PC&PNDT Act or the Rules, without prejudice to any criminal action, may suspend or cancel its registration as the case maybe – Sub-Section (3) of s.20 only deals with suspension and confers independent power to the appropriate authority irrespective and notwithstanding the power under sub-sections (1) or (2) of s.20 – The said power may only be exercised by the appropriate authority if the said authority is of the opinion that exercise of such power is necessary or expedient in public [2024] 3 S.C.R. 61 District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr. interest – Meaning thereby that the exercise of such power of suspension by appropriate authority is in a contingency where it is expedient or necessary to take immediate action in public interest – While exercising such power, it is incumbent on the authority to form an opinion for reasons to be recorded in writing to indicate the said public interest – The said power is not akin to the power as specified in sub-section 2 of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act and the Rules thereto. [Paras 10, 11] Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2) & (3) – During inspection of the hospital run by respondent no.1, the appropriate authority and its team found some lapses contravening the provisions of PC&PNDT Act – On 25.10.2010, the appropriate authority without giving any notice passed an order suspending the registration of the hospital in exercise of the power u/s. 20(1) & (2) of the PC & PNDT Act – Appellate Authority directed the appropriate authority to pass a suitable order – Pursuant thereto, appropriate authority passed fresh order on 29.12.2010 that there was breach of mandatory provisions and suspended the registration u/s. 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act in public interest – Propriety: Held: The power of sub-section (3) of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act is notwithstanding the power of sub-sections (1) & (2) of s.20 – The said power can only be exercised when the appropriate authority forms an opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest to do so – It is incumbent upon the appropriate authority to form its opinion based on reasons expedient or necessary to exercise the power of suspension – The contents of the suspension order dated 29.12.2010 does not contain reasons as required to form an opinion that it is necessitated or expedient in public interest to exercise the power of suspension –Therefore, it does not fulfill the requirement of sub-section (3) of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act – Neither the first order of suspension dated 25.10.2010 nor the second order of suspension dated 29.12.2010 qualifies the requirement of sub-section (3) of s.20 of the PC&PNDT Act – The said view is fortified by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 16] Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20 (2) & (3) – Intendment of: 62 [2024] 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.