Hospital's Registration Can't Be Cancelled Under PC & PNDT Act If Not Expedient In Public Interest: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the suspension/cancellation of the registration of the Hospital/Clinic under Section 20(3) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-­Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 ("PC&PNDT Act") is permissible only when the  Appropriate Authority believes that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest.

"in our view, the power of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act is notwithstanding the power of sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 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. 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, in our view, it does not fulfill the requirement of sub¬section (3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act.", the Bench Comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan said.

The aforesaid observation came in the Judgment authored by Justice JK Maheshwari, where the Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by the appropriate authority/appellant constituted under the PC & PNDT Act against the decision of the High Court which held that the action of the appellant to suspend the registration of the respondent no.1 contravenes to Section 20 (3) of PC & PNDT Act as the reasons assigned in subsequent order of suspension by the appropriate authority are not valid to exercise such power in public interest.

For the sake of convenience Section 20 (3) of the PC & PNDT Act is reproduced below:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub¬sections (1) and (2), if the Appropriate Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the registration of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such notice referred to in sub-section (1)."

Background

The brief facts of the case were that the appellant/appropriate authority inspected respondent no.1/hospital based on the complaint. During an inspection, the appropriate authority and its team found some lapses contravening the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act. Consequently, the sonography machine operated in the hospital was seized. On 25.10.2010, the appropriate authority without giving any notice passed an order suspending the registration of the hospital in the exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) of the PC & PNDT Act. 

However, on appeal preferred by respondent No. 1, the appellate authority directed the appropriate authority to pass a suitable order within 15 days and to clarify whether the order dated 25.10.2020, was passed in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) or under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act.

The appropriate authority taking cue from the order of the appellate authority, passed a fresh order on 29.12.2010 that there was a breach of mandatory provisions and accordingly suspended the registration purportedly under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act in public interest till finalization of the criminal proceedings. 

The High Court, however, overturned the decision to suspend the registration of respondent no.1.

Aggrieved by the High Court decision, the appropriate authority preferred the civil appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Observation

After perusing the suspension order passed by the appropriate authority by exercising the power to cancel/suspend the registration of respondent no.1 under Section 20 (3) of the Act, the court found that the contents of the suspension order 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, in our view, it does not fulfill the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the PC & PNDT Act. As per the above discussions, 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 Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act. The said view is fortified by the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench which we find just and concur by its reasoning. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal.", the court observed.

Further, the court noted that the power under Section 20(3) is intermittent and in addition to the power of sub­section (2), therefore it should be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances in the public interest. 

"In the said situation in case, the authority forms an opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest, then after recording reasons in writing, it may suspend the registration of the licensed entity without notice as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 20. Thus, the power of sub¬section (3) is intermittent and in addition to the power of sub¬section (2) but it may be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances in public interest. In our view, the power of suspension, if any exercised, by the appropriate authority deeming it necessary or expedient in public interest for the reasons so specified, it should be for interim period and not for an inordinate duration.", the court said.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court rejecting the order of the appropriate authority to cancel the registration of respondent no.1/hospital.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, AOR Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Srikant Swaroop, Adv.

Case Title: DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER vs. JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA, CIVIL APPEAL No. 003831 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 202

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment