Bombay High Court
Niraj Kumarsinh Kadam And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra, Public Health … on 17 July, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:9075-DB
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2023
AND
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3918 OF 2023
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2023
1. Dr.Niraj s/o Kumarsinh Kadam, age:- 47
years, occupation: - Doctor, r/o Kadam
Hospital, Basant Nagar Taluka:- Aarvi,
district Wardha. 442 201.
2. Dr.Rekha wife of Niraj Kadam, age:-
44 years, occupation:- doctor, r/o Kadam
Hospital, Basant Nagar Taluka:- Aarvi,
district Wardha. 442 201. ..... Petitioners.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra, Public Health
Department, through Secretary, G.T.
Hospital Complex Building, 10th
floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400001.
2. Dr.Mohan s/o Bhanudas Sute, aged
about:- 55 years, occupation: - Medical
Superintendent Aarvi Hospital, r/o
Aarvi Hospital, Taluka:- Aarvi, district-
Wardha. (As mentioned in the complaint
No.31 of 2022). ..... Respondents.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3918 OF 2023
1. Dr.Niraj s/o Kumarsinh Kadam, age:- 47
.....1/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
2
years, occupation: - Doctor, r/o Kadam
Hospital, Basant Nagar Taluka:- Aarvi,
district Wardha. 442 201.
2. Dr.Rekha wife of Niraj Kadam, age:-
44 years, occupation:- doctor, r/o Kadam
Hospital, Basant Nagar Taluka:- Aarvi,
district Wardha. 442 201. ..... Petitioners.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. State of Maharashtra, Public Health
Department, through Secretary, G.T.
Hospital Complex Building, 10th
floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400001.
2. Dr.Mohan s/o Bhanudas Sute, aged
about:- 55 years, occupation: - Medical
Superintendent Aarvi Hospital, r/o
Aarvi Hospital, Taluka:- Aarvi, district-
Wardha. (As mentioned in the complaint
No.31 of 2022). ..... Respondents.
================================
Shri S.Zia Quazi, Counsel for Petitioners.
Shri D.V.Chauhan, Public Prosecutor (Senior Counsel) assisted
by Shri S.S.Hulke, APP for Respondent No.1/State.
================================
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P.MEHTA, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 07/07/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 17/07/2026
JUDGMENT :
(Per : Urmila Joshi-Phalke)
…..2/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
3
1. Heard learned counsel Shri S.Zia Quazi for petitioners
and learned Public Prosecutor Shri D.V.Chauhan (Senior
Counsel) assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
S.S.Hulke for respondent No.1/State. Rule. Rule returnable
forthwith. Heard finally by consent.
2. By these petitions, petitioners have challenged
Notification dated 16.3.2016 issued by respondent No.1 under
provisions of Section 17(2)(3) of The Pre-Conception and Pre-
Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994. (for short, “the
PCPNDT Act”).
Factual matrix of case:
3. In Cr.Writ Petition No.391/2023, petitioners seek
quashing of Notification dated 16.3.2026 and Regular
Criminal Case No.31/2022 pending before learned JMFC,
Aarvi, district Wardha.
4. In Civil Writ Petition No.3918/2023, petitioners seek
quashing of Notification dated 16.3.2026 and order passed by
…..3/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
4
respondent No.2 – Dr.Mohan s/o Bhanudas Sute, Medical
Superintendent, Aarvi Hospital, under Section 20 of the
PCPNDT Act and also seek directions to remove “Seal
Sonography Machine from X-Ray Room of “Kadam Hospital”
and place the same at any other place in safe custody.
Facts of case in Cr.Writ Petition No.391/2023:
5. Petitioners are medical practitioners and
Gynaecologists and practising at Arvi, district Wardha. Father
of petitioner No.1 is also a medical practitioner and running a
hospital under the name and style as “Kadam Hospital.” As
per contentions of petitioners, they, after due compliance of
all formalities, made an application for grant of licence to run
“Genetic and Ultrasound Clinic.” The competent authority
granted the licence and, therefore, their “Genetic and
Ultrasound Clinic” was registered vide registration
No.36/2006. Respondent No.1 is the authority under the
PCPNDT Act to appoint appropriate authority as contemplated
under provisions of Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act.
…..4/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
5
Respondent No.2 is the appropriate authority appointed by
respondent No.1.
6. Respondent No.2 – Dr.Mohan s/o Bhanudas Sute, the
Medical Superintendent, had filed complaint under provisions
of Section 28 of the PCPNDT Act alleging that respondent
No.2 being an appropriate authority, has conducted inspection
of “Genetic and Ultrasound Clinic” of petitioners on
18.1.2022. During the inspection, several discrepancies were
noted in the above mentioned “Genetic and Ultrasound Clinic”
of petitioners. There were discrepancies in Form-F regarding
signatures. Further, a copy of the PCPNDT Act was not found
in the patients’ waiting area. Thus, there is contravention of
provisions of the PCPNDT Act, which is punishable under
Section 23 read with 25 of the PCPNDT Act. On the basis of
the said complaint, Regular Criminal Case No.31/2022 was
registered. Respondent No.2 had filed spot inspection report;
seizure panchanama; inspection report; and Notification
issued by respondent No.1. Learned JMFC at Arvi, after
…..5/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
6
taking cognizance, on 22.2.2022 issued process against
petitioners.
7. As per contentions of petitioners, impugned order
passed by learned JMFC at Arvi of issuance of process is
without application of mind. In fact, respondent No.1 had
issued Notification on 16.3.2016 contrary to provisions of
Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act. Petitioners, being aggrieved
by the Notification issued by respondent No.1, and order
passed by learned JMFC, approached this court. As per
contentions of petitioners, FIR came to be lodged against
them with Arvi Police Station, district Wardha for offences
under Sections 201, 312, 313, 315, 341, 376(3), and 376(2)
(n) read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 4 and
6 and 21(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 alleging that petitioners have conducted
medical termination of pregnancy of minor girls.
8. The said petition was opposed by the State on the
ground that it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of
…..6/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
7
petitioners to maintain all records, charts, forms, reports,
consent letters, and all other documents in view of Section 29
of the PCPNDT Act and Rule 9 framed thereunder. During the
inspection, respondent No.2 has also verified records
maintained by both the petitioners and noted various
irregularities. It was noted that a copy of the PCPNDT Act
was not found in OPD, which is contravention of Rule 17(2).
The consent letters were obtained, but there were no
signatures of patients on the same letters as required under
Section 5 of the PCPNDT Act. The persons, conducting Ultra-
Sonography on pregnant women, shall keep a complete
record thereof in clinic in such a manner as may be prescribed
and any deficiency/inaccuracy found therein shall amount to
contravention of provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the
PCPNDT Act. The owner of Sonography Centre has not
maintained details of patients required under Section 29(1)
and Rule (9) of the PCPNDT Act. During the inspection,
Sonography Form-F was found, but signatures or consent or
…..7/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
8
declaration of patients were not found as required under the
PCPNDT Act. Thus, considering all illegalities and
irregularities committed, inspection report was prepared and,
thereafter, the complaint came to be lodged. The act of
petitioners is against object of the PCPNDT Act and, therefore,
action was taken.
Facts of case in Civil Writ Petition No.3918/2023:
9. Petitioners are medical practitioners and
Gynaecologists and practising at Arvi, district Wardha. Father
of petitioner No.1 is also a medical practitioner and running a
hospital under the name and style as “Kadam Hospital.”
Petitioners, after due compliance of all formalities, made an
application for grant of licence to run “Genetic and
Ultrasound Clinic.” The said application was granted in their
favour. Respondent No.1 is the authority under the PCPNDT
Act to appoint the State level appropriate authority as
contemplated under provisions of Section 17 of the PCPNDT
…..8/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
9
Act. Respondent No.2 is the appropriate authority appointed
by respondent No.1.
10. Respondent No.2 – Dr.Mohan s/o Bhanudas Sute, who
was appointed as appropriate authority, allegedly conducted
an inspection in “Genetic and Ultrasound Clinic” of petitioners
along with six other persons. The alleged inspection was
conducted during night hours from around 8:00 pm and was
completed at 11:15 pm on 18.1.2022. After the alleged
inspection, one spot inspection report and one seizure
panchanama were also prepared. Respondent No.2 had
prepared alleged seizure report, which was signed by panchas
and signatures of brother of petitioners were obtained on the
said seizure report. It is alleged by petitioners that, though
seizure report was concluded at around 11:15 pm, signatures
of pancha witnesses were obtained at around 2:00 am on
19.1.2022. The FIR was registered against petitioners with
Arvi Police Station for offences under Sections 201, 312, 313,
315, 341, 376(3), and 376(2)(n) read with Section 34 of the
…..9/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
10
IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 and 21(1) of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 alleging that
petitioners have conducted medical termination of pregnancy
of minor girls and, therefore, offences came to be registered
against them. The complaint came to be filed by respondent
No.2 in the court of JMFC at Arvi under Section 28 of the
PCPNDT Act. It is alleged by petitioners that during
inspection, several discrepancies were allegedly noted by
respondent No.2 and copy of the same was not furnished to
the petitioners. As per contentions of petitioners, action of
respondent No.2 is arbitrary and illegal and colourable
exercise of powers without any authority. The main
contentions of petitioners are that, respondent No.2 is
appointed as appropriate authority by contravening Section
17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act.
11. The said petition is opposed by the State on the ground
that petitioners were found involving in illegal activities.
During the inspection, various discrepancies are noted and,
…..10/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
11
therefore, action is taken against petitioners. The
appointment of respondent No.2, as an appropriate authority,
is in view of Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act.
Submissions of counsel for petitioners:
12. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted the
appointment of respondent No.2 is in contravention of Section
17(2)(3) of the PCPNDT Act. He submitted that requirement
is of Multi Member Committee. Whereas, respondent No.2,
who is the only persons, is shown to have been appointed as
appropriate authority, which is contrary to above mentioned
provisions of Section 17 of the PCPNDT Act and, therefore,
the Notification by respondent No.1 is illegal and liable to be
quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that respondent
No.2 has filed documents, which are spot panchanama,
seizure panchanama, inspection report. The provisions of the
PCPNDT Act to be implemented and followed scrupulously
are not followed by respondent No.2. The procedure, in view
of Rule 12 of The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
…..11/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
12
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, is also
not followed by respondent No.2. In fact, following the above
said procedure prescribed is mandatory. It is mandatory that
list of material seized from the premises shall be prepared in
duplicate at the place of effecting seizure and both copies of
the list shall be signed on every page by the appropriate
authority or the officer authorized in this behalf by witnesses
at the time of seizure. Thus, he submitted that the
appointment of the appropriate authority itself is contrary to
the provisions of the PCPNDT Act and, therefore, the activities
conducted, in view of the Notification issued, are contrary to
the law. The entire activity is illegal, unauthorized, and
contrary to the law and, therefore, the Notification deserves to
be quashed. He further submitted that as respondent No.2 is
not the appropriate authority, the complaint filed before
learned JMFC, Arvi deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Citations:
…..12/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
13
13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for
petitioners has placed reliance on following decisions:
(1) Help Welfare Group Society vs. The State of
Haryana and ors and ors, reported in 2013 SCC
OnLine P&H 19599;
(2) Cri.W.P.No.977/2016 (Dr.Zoni Jain & ors vs.
The State of Punjab and ors) (P&H High Court);
and
(3) Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Haryana,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2495.
Submissions of Public Prosecutor:
14. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor/Senior Counsel
strongly opposed these petitions and submitted that
statements and objects of the Act require to be considered.
The Act was enacted to prohibit prenatal diagnostic
techniques for determination of sex of foetus leading to
female foeticide. Such abuse of techniques is discriminatory
against female and against the dignity and status of women.
The Legislation is required to regulate use of such techniques
…..13/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
14
and provide deterrent punishment to stop such inhuman acts.
Therefore, Bill, inter alia, provides for:
(1) prohibition of misuse of prenatal diagnostic
techniques for determination of sex of foetus, leading
to female foeticide;
(2) prohibition of advertisement of prenatal diagnostic
techniques for detection or determination of sex; (3)
permission and regulation of use of prenatal diagnostic
techniques for the purposes of detection of specific
genetic abnormalities or disorders;
(4) permitting the use of such techniques only under
certain conditions by the registered institutions; and(5) punishment for violation of provisions for the
proposed legislation.
By way of an amendment in the year 2001, the Act
provides for regulation of the use of prenatal diagnostic
techniques for detecting genetic or metabolic disorders or
Choromosomal Abnormalities, certain congenital
malformation of sex linked disorders and for the prevention of
…..14/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
15
misuse of such techniques for the purposes of prenatal sex
determination leading to female foeticide and for matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act gives powers to search
and seizure of the records. The said Sections states that, “if
the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe that an
offence under this Act has been or is being committed at any
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic
or any other place, such Authority or any officer authorized in
this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed,
enter and search at all reasonable times with such assistance,
if any, as such Authority or officer considers necessary, such
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory, Genetic Clinic
or any other place and examine any record, register,
document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other
material object found therein and seize and seal the same if
such Authority or officer has reason to believe that it may
…..15/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
16
furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable
under this Act.
The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 relating to searches and seizures shall, so far as may be,
apply to every search or seizure made under this Act.
He submitted that in view of above said circumstances,
petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed.
He further submitted that in the year 2003, there is an
amendment to Section 17(3)(a) of the PCPNDT Act. However,
Clause (b) to the said Section was kept as it is intentionally.
Clause (a) to Section 17, relates to whole part of the State.
Whereas, Clause (b) relates to part of the State.
He also invited our attention towards various
illegalities committed by petitioners and contraventions and
inspection report and submitted that the entire documents
substantiate the action taken by respondent No.2 is correct
and legal.
…..16/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
17
Citations:
15. In support of his contentions, learned Public
Prosecutor for the State has placed reliance on following
decisions:
(1) Writ Petition No.250/2025 (Dr.Payal w/o
Shreekant Chobe vs. State of Mah., and ors)
decided by this court at Aurangabad Bench on
16.10.2015;
(2) Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
2008 SCC OnLine Gujarat 294; and
(3) Dr. Ramesh vs. State of Mah. and anr, reported
in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1113.
(4) Ramesh Chand Gupta and ors vs. State of
Rajasthan, reported in 2015 RLR 2824
16. We have herd learned counsel for petitioners and
learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length.
Discussion:
…..17/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
18
17. Before entering into the merits of the case, it would be
apposite to see the object behind enactment i.e. the PCPNDT
Act. Few basic requirements of the Act are; (i) registration
under Section 18 of the Act; (ii) written consent of the
pregnant woman and prohibition of communicating the sex of
foetus under Section 5 of the Act; and (iii) maintenance of
records as provided under Section 29 of the Act.
18. A look at the basic requirement of the Act shows the
simplicity of the Act, but non-compliance of the Act in any
manner, be it the smallest of an error brings wrath upon the
errant. The Act is legislated in a manner that it should be a
deterrent for those indulging in sex determination. It
prohibits misuse of medical technologies for prenatal sex
determination and gender biased abortions.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Ramesh vs.
State of Mah. and anr (supra), relied upon by learned Public
Prosecutor for the State, has taken note of object of the Act
and observed in paragraph No.14, as under:
…..18/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
19
“14. The provisions reproduced above and also the
judicial interpretation thereof leave no room for
doubt. The keeping of records is essential to the
Act and its avowed purpose. It is true that in
general terms, the declining sex ratio issue is
better and has shown considerable improvement
but, however, diluting the provisions of law, or
letting infractions thereof slide cannot be
countenanced. According to official Government of
India data, the country’s sex ratio has shown clear
signs of improvement in recent years, though the
story is not entirely straightforward. The National
Family Health Survey-5 (2019-21)11, conducted
under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
records the sex ratio to be 1,020 females per 1,000
males, compared to 991 in NFHS-4 (2015-16). At
the same time, the sex ratio at birth, which reflects
the number of girls born relative to boys in the five
years preceding the survey, stood at 929 females
per 1,000 males.”
Further observations in paragraph No.16 are as under:
…..19/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
20
“16. These schemes are indicative of continued
efforts to eradicate the systemic bias suffered by
the girl child in an inherently patriarchal system.
Much progress has been made, and yet, much is
left to be desired. In sum, while the situation is
markedly better than it was in the mid-1990s, the
data does not support complacency. The statistics
referred to above show that the progress made is
incomplete and uneven. Consequently, the integrity
and strict enforcement of welfare-oriented
legislation such as the PCPNDT Act remain
essential along with efforts continued and earnest,
till the time there is a widespread change in
mentality and what till now, is perceived as the
‘inherent weakness’ of the woman, is replaced by
true equality, when there will dawn a realization
that efforts such as these are no longer required.
This is not to say that the laws protecting women
within legislation such as IPC/BNS will no longer
be required but at least, there will no longer be a
question on whether a girl child deserves to be
born.”
20. In the light of the above observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the challenge in both petitions requires to be
…..20/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
21
considered. The challenge in both petitions is to the
Notification issued in view of Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT
Act. The said Notification, for reference, is reproduced, as
under:
“महाराष्ट्र शासन राजपत्र भाग चार शासन राजपत्र भाग चार राजपत्र भाग चार भाग चार चार-अ, ग चारुरुवार ते बुधवार एप्रिल ७ बुधवार एप्रि ल ७ ७-१३, २०१६/चैत्र भाग चार २८-
२४. शके बुधवार एप्रिल ७ १९३८
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
G. T. Hospital Complex Building, 10th Floor, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400
001 dated the 16th March 2016NOTIFICATION
PRE-CONCEPTION AND PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES
(PROHIBITION OF SEX SELECTION) ACT, 1994.
No.PRACHINE 2012/CR-78/FW-In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) read with (3) of section 17 of the Pre-conception and
Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of sex selection) Act, 1994
(57 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to ne “the said Act Land of all other
posit enabling it in that behalf, and in supersession of the Government
Notification, Public Health Departinent, bearing No. PRACHINI:
2012/CR-78/PW, dated the 15th May 2015 the Government of
Maharashtra is hereby pleased to appoint an Appropriate Authorities
consisting of the members mentioned in column (2) în respect of the
level specified against each of them in column (3) and allocates among
each of them the area mentioned in column (4) of the Table appended
below :-
————————————————————————————————–
Sr.No. Appropriate Authority Level Allocated Areas (1) (2) (3) (4)
————————————————————————————————–
1 Collector, Civil Surgeon District Whole District
(excluding
Municipal…..21/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
22
Corporation and
Municipal
Councils)
2 Medical Superintendents, Taluka Taluka/Area
Rural hospitals/Sub-District allocated to
Hospital/General/cottage Rural Hospital
Hospital. General/Cottage
Hospital.
3 Municipal Commissioner, Medical Municipal Concern
Health Officer Corportion Municipal
Corporation
and Contonment
Board (If any)
concern ward.
4 Deputy Director, Health Service Regional Concern Health
in charge circle.
5 Executive Health Officer, Joint Greater Greater Mumbai
Executive Health Officer, Deputy Mumbai Municipal
Executive Health Officer, Municipal Corporation/
Special Officer (FW) Medical Corporation concern ward.
Officers of Health of all wards
6. Medical Director Pimpri Pimpri
Chinchwad Chimchwad
Municipal Municipal
Corporation Corporation
7 Medical Superintendent Nashik Nashik
Municipal Corporation
Corporation
8. Assistant Medical Officer Pune Pune
of Health Municipal Municipal
Corporation Corporation
2. The Government of Maharashtra further directs that, the function
provided under clause of sub-section (4) of section 17 of the said Act, to
grant, suspend or cancel registration netic Counseling Centre, Genetic
…..22/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
23
laboratory of Genetic Clinic vest only with the Medical propriate
Authorities of the District or Corporation, as the case may be.
The Appropriate Authority shall perform the other functions mentioned
in the said Act. Old es (if any) pending on the date of publication of the
said notification shall be dealt by the concerned authorities.
By order and in the name
of the Governor of Maharashtra,
S. H. KARANJEKAR,
Deputy Secretary to Government.”
21. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is
that, the Notification authorizing “A Single Member Authority’
is contrary to requirement of law and contrary to the
definition provided under Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT
Act. He submitted that requirement of the law is of “Multi
Member Committee.” Whereas, the State Government has
issued Notification appointing “A Single Member Committee,”
which is absolutely contrary to the law.
In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the
decision in the case of Help Welfare Group Society vs. The
State of Haryana and ors and ors (supra) wherein the Punjab
…..23/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
24
and Haryana High Court, while interpreting provisions of
Section 17(3)(a) of the PCPNDT Act, held that, “the purposive
construction must be given to the said provisions and the
intent to have a multi member body is not eschewed in Sub-
section (b) when the appointment is for a part of the State or
the Union Territory. We find it difficult to accept that if the
appointment is for the whole of the State, it will be three
members committee, while it is for part of State, it will be
single member committee. The only change is that the
Chairperson need not be of the rank of Joint Director of the
Health and Family Welfare, but of such other rank as the State
Government may deem fit. It will still continue to be a multi-
member committee having an eminent woman representing
women’s organization and officer of the Law department of
the State as a member.”
22. In the case of Dr.Zoni Jain & ors vs. The State of
Punjab and ors (supra), the Punjab and Haryana High Court
has taken a contrary view and referred the matter to the Chief
…..24/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
25
Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court to refer the same to
the Larger Bench. In view of the reference, the Chief Justice
of Punjab and Haryana High Court constituted a Larger Bench
in Dr.Zoni Jain & ors vs. The State of Punjab and ors and
other connected, reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Punjab and
Haryana High Court 6262 and while summoning up, the Full
Bench Held as under:
“41. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters,
statement of object and reasons, preamble, and
statute as a whole, the principle of purposive
construction seem more conducive to invoke while
interpreting clause (b) of Section 17(3) of the Act.
42. Constitution of multi-member, appropriate
authority for a part of the State and the Union-
Territory shall enhance the functional principle of
the enactment. Interpreting clause (b) of Section
17(3) in aforesaid manner would only fructify object
and purpose of the act.
43. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, appointment of
multi- member appropriate authority for a part of
the State or the Union Territory shall advance the…..25/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
26
purpose of the Act while removing the mischief
observed in the functioning of the enactment which
lead to making large scale amendments.
44. In view of the above facts and discussions as
between the conflicting judgments noticed above,
we prefer to approve the ratio laid down by the
judgment in the case of Help Welfare Group Society
vs. The State of Haryana (CWP No.21565/2011) as
the same is in advancement of aims and object of
legislature. Accordingly, the view taken in the
judgment rendered in the case of Dr.Zoni Jain vs.
The State of Punjab (Criminal Writ Petition
No.977/2016) in our opinion does not lay down
correct law.”
23. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that thus in
view of the Full Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, there has to be the constitution of Multi Member
Authority even for part of the State and the Union Territory to
enhance the functional principle of the enactment.
…..26/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
27
24. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor for the State
strongly opposed the said contentions and submitted that the
contrary view is taken by the Full Bench at Gujarat High Court
in the case of Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat (supra) wherein it
is observed that,
“A conjoint reading of the above provisions would
clearly indicate a well-knit legislative scheme for
ensuring a strict and vigilant enforcement of the
provisions of the Act directed against female
foeticide and misuse of pre-natal diagnostic
techniques. In fact, the use of those techniques are
restricted to the purpose of detection of any of the
abnormalities or diseases enumerated in sub-
section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The provisions
are stricter in case of conduct of pre-natal
diagnostic techniques on a pregnant woman,
requiring her written consent and determination
of sex of a foetus is prohibited by the provisions of
Sections 5 and 6. Constitution of ‘Appropriate
Authority’ under Section 17 is clearly meant to
ensure proper and vigorous implementation of the
Act; and it is expressly prescribed as one of its
…..27/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
28
functions to take legal action against the use of
any sex-selection technique. That authority, where
appointed for the whole of a State or Union
Territory, has to consist of three members. And
when it is appointed for a part of the State or a
Union Territory, it could consist of an officer of
such rank as the Government concerned may
deem fit.”
25. Thus, the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court has
taken a view that for a whole of State if appropriate authority
requires to be appointed if should consist of three members,
whereas for a part of a State it would consist of an officer of
such rank as the Government concern may deem fit.
26. By accepting the view taken by the Full Bench of the
Gujarat High Court, the Delhi High Court in Criminal
M.C.NO.4556/2015 (Manish Gupta vs. State of NCT of Delhi)
decided on 22.4.2022 held in paragraph No.12 as under”
“12. The Full Bench decision rendered by the
Gujarat High Court and relied upon by the learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State though
…..28/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
29
did not deal with the interpretation of Section
17(3)(a) of the PC&PNDT Act, however,
distinguished Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Section
17(3) and held that the use of the word
‘Appropriate Authority’ twice, at the beginning and
end of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 28
clearly conveys that the complaint could be made
by an officer who is authorized in that behalf by
the Central Government, the State Government or
the Appropriate Authority, besides the Appropriate
Authority itself.”
The Delhi High Court, further, in paragraph No.15,
observed, as under:
“15. “Appropriate Authority” is defined under
Section 2(a) of the PC&PNDT Act to mean the
Appropriate Authority appointed under Section 17
of the PC&PNDT Act. Though amendment was
carried out in Section 17(3)(a) by the Act 14 of
2003, however no corresponding amendment was
carried out in Section 17(3)(b). Reading Section
17(3) as it stood prior to the amendment, there
was no stipulation on the number of members and
…..29/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
30
only stipulation was on the rank whether it be an
Appropriate Authority for the whole of State or
Union Territory under Section 17(3)(a) or for any
part of the State or Union Territory under Section
17(3)(b). Legislature in its wisdom amended only
clause (a) of sub-section 17(3) and not clause (b)
to sub-Section 17(3) which was retained as it
existed prior to the amendment. Thus, only if the
Appropriate Authority is appointed for the whole
of the State or Union Territory it would be
required to be a multi-member authority. However
when Appropriate Authority is appointed for part
of the Union Territory or part of the State, a single
member Appropriate Authority can competently be
appointed and a valid cognizance taken on the
complaint of such a single member Authority. If
the Legislature had so desired it could have
amended clause (b) of sub-section 17(3) as well.”
27. The similar view is taken by the Rajasthan High Court
in the case of Ramesh Chand Gupta and ors vs. State of
Rajasthan (supra). The observations of the Rajasthan High
Court, in paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, are reproduced
as under:
…..30/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
31
“9. The perusal of sub-section (1) of section of 17
of the PCPNDT Act reveals that the Central
Government can appoint one or more Appropriate
Authorities for the Union Territories. The case in
hand is not of Union Territories, thus aforesaid
sub-section is not relevant for this case.
10. Sub-section (2) of section 17 provides about
the appointment of one or more Appropriate
Authority by the State Government for whole or
part of the State. In the instant case, Appropriate
Authority has been appointed for part of the State.
11. Sub-section (3) of section 17 refers as to how
the Appropriate Authority would be appointed
under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2). Clause
(a) to sub-section (3) of section 17 provides for
appointment for whole of the State or Union
Territory. It should consist of three members
referred therein.
12. clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 17 is
relevant and provides about appointment of
appropriate authority for any part of the State or
the UT. It is such rank as the State Government or
the Central Government deem fit. The present case
…..31/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
32
is covered by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of
section 17 of PCPNDT Act. According to the
petitioner, it has to be read along with sub-section
(3)(a), which provides about appointment under
sub-section (1) and (2). Under clause (a) of the
said sub-section, nomination should be of three
members and, according to him, same composition
should exist for the part of the State.
13. The argument aforesaid cannot be accepted for
the reason that if same composition would have
been required i.e an Appropriate Authority for the
part of the State with three members, it would
have been specified under clause (b) of sub-section
(3) of section 17. The Legislature, under their
wisdom, only referred such rank as the State
Government or the Central Government deem fit.
It clearly shows composition to be different than of
the State level. If the composition of three
members would have been required, necessary
provision could have been inserted as to who
would be other two members. It is more so when
at the State level, composition has been specifically
given and, according to it, one eminent woman
representing women’s organization is to be part of
…..32/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
33
the Appropriate Authority. If it is to be repeated for
every Appropriate Authority and even for the part
of the State, indication aforesaid would have been
specific, which does not exist herein. Thus, I am
unable to take the interpretation as has been given
by learned counsel for the petitioners.”
28. In the light of the above observations of various courts,
we would like to first refer definition of “Appropriate
Authorities” given under Section 2(a) of the PCPNDT Act, as
under:
“2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, – (a) “Appropriate Authority”
means the Appropriate Authority appointed under
section 17”
29. Section 17 reads as under:
“17. Appropriate Authority and Advisory Committee.-
1. The Central Government shall appoint, by
notification in the Official Gazette, one or more
Appropriate Authorities for each of the Union
territories for the purposes of this Act.
…..33/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
34
2. The State Government shall appoint, by notification
in the Official Gazette, one or more Appropriate
Authorities for the whole or part of the State for the
purposes of this Act having regard to the intensity of
the problem of pre-natal sex determination leading to
female foeticide.
3. The officers appointed as Appropriate Authorities
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be,–
(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the
Union territory, consisting of the following
three members-
i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Director
of Health and Family Welfare-Chairperson;
ii) an eminent woman representing women’s
organization; and
iii) an officer of Law Department of the State or the
Union territory concerned:
Provided that it shall be the duty of the State or the
Union territory concerned to constitute multi-
member State or Union territory level Appropriate
Authority within three months of the coming into
force of the Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
…..34/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
35
(Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Amendment
Act, 2002:
Provided further that any vacancy occurring therein
shall be filled within three months of that occurrence.
(b) when appointed for any part of the State or the
Union territory, of such other rank as the
State Government or the Central Government, as the
case may be, may deem fit.
(a) to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a
Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory
or Genetic Clinic;
(b) to enforce standards prescribed for the Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and
Genetic Clinic;
(c) to investigate complaints of breach of the
provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder
and take immediate action;
(d) to seek and consider the advice of the Advisory
Committee, constituted under sub-section (5), on
application for registration and on complaints for
suspension or cancellation of registration;
…..35/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
36
(e) to take appropriate legal action against the use of
any sex selection technique by any person
at any place, suo motu or brought to its notice and
also to initiate independent investigations
in such matter;
(f) to create public awareness against the practice of
sex selection or pre-natal determination of sex;
(g) to supervise the implementation of the provisions
of the Act and rules;
(h) to recommend to the CSB and State Boards
modifications required in the rules in accordance
with changes in technology or social conditions;
(i) to take action on the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee made after investigation
of complaint for suspension or cancellation of
registration.
5. The Central Government or the State Government,
as the case may be, shall constitute an Advisory
Committee for each Appropriate Authority to aid and
advise the Appropriate Authority in the discharge of
its functions, and shall appoint one of the members of
the Advisory Committee to be its Chairman.
…..36/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
37
6. The Advisory Committee shall consist of–
(a) three medical experts from amongst
gynaecologists, obstericians, paediatricians and
medical geneticists;
(b) one legal expert;
(c) one officer to represent the department dealing
with information and publicity of the State
Government or the Union territory, as the case may be;
(d) three eminent social workers of whom not less
than one shall be from amongst representatives of
women’s organizations.
7. No person who has been associated with the use or
promotion of pre-natal diagnostic technique for
determination of sex or sex selection shall be
appointed as a member of the Advisory Committee.
8. The Advisory Committee may meet as and when it
thinks fit or on the request of the Appropriate
Authority for consideration of any application for
registration or any complaint for suspension or
cancellation of registration and to give advice thereon:
…..37/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
38
Provided that the period intervening between any two
meetings shall not exceed the prescribed
period.
9. The terms and conditions subject to which a person
may be appointed to the Advisory Commit-
tee and the procedure to be followed by such
Committee in the discharge of its functions shall be
such as may be prescribed.
17A. Powers of Appropriate Authorities.- The
Appropriate Authority shall have the powers in respect
of the following matters, namely:-
a) summoning of any person who is in possession of
any information relating to violation of the
provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder;
b) production of any document or material object
relating to clause (a);
c) issuing search warrant for any place suspected to be
indulging in sex selection techniques or
pre-natal sex determination; and
d) any other matter which may be prescribed.”
…..38/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
39
30. Thus, Section 17(3)(a) and 17(3)(b) are two
provisions which provide for constitution of the appropriate
authority. Section 17(3)(a) was amended and came into effect
from 14.2.2003. The difference between pre-amended and
post-amended, Section 17(3)(a) is as under:
UN- AMENDED AMENDED
CHAPTER V CHAPTER V
Appropriate Authority and Appropriate Authority and
Advisory Committee Advisory Committee
17. Appropriate Authority and 17. Appropriate Authority and
Advisory Committee.- Advisory Committee.-
(1) The Central Government shall (1)(The Central Government shall
appoint, by notification in the appoint, by notification in the
Official Gazette, one more Official Gazette, one or more
Appropriate Authorities for each of appropriate authorities for each of
the Union Territories for each of the Union Terrotories for each of
the Union Territories for the the Union Territories for the
purposes of this Act. purposes of this Act.
(2) The State Government shall (2) The State Government shball
appoint, by notification in the appoint, by notificatoin in the
Official Gazette, one more Official Gazette, one or more
Appropriate Authorities for the Appropriate Authorities for the
whole or part of the State for the whole or part of the State for the
purposes of this Act having regard purposes of purposes of this Act
to the intensity of the problem of having regard to the intentsity of
pre-natal sex determination the problem of pre-natal sex
leading female foeticide. determination leading to female
…..39/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
40
foeticide.
(3) The officers appointed as
Appropriate Authorities under sub- (3) The officers appointed as
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall Appropriate funder sub-Section (1)
be, – or sub- section (2) shall be,-
(a) when appointed for the whole (a) when appointed for the whole
of the State or the Union Territory, of the State or the Union Territory,
of or above the rank of the Joint consisting of the following three
Director of Health and Family members-
Welfare: and
(i) an officer of or above the rank
(b) when appointed for any part of of the Joint Director of Health and
the State or the Union Territory, of Family Chairperson; Welfare-
such other rank as the State
Government or the Central (ii) an eminent woman
Government, as the case may be, representing women’s
may deem fit. organization; and
(iii) an officer of Law Department
of the State or the Union Territory
concerned;
Provided that it shall be the duty of
the State of the Union Territory
concerned to constitute
multimember State or Union
Territory level Appropriate
Authority within three months of
the coming into force of the Pre-
natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation and Prevention of
Misuse) Amendment Act, 2002:
Provided further that any vacancy
occurring therein shall be filled
within three months of the
occurrence
(b) when appointed for any part of
the State or the Union Territory, of
such other rank as the State
Government or the Central
Government, as the case may be,
may deem fit.”
…..40/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
41
31. Thus, the amendment in Section 17(3)(a) of the
PCPNDT Act restructured the appropriate authority into
Three Member Committee. The purpose to ensure
enforcement of provisions to curb female foeticide and to
improve accountability by the de-centralizing powers. At the
same time, legislature intentionally omitted the
corresponding amendment in Section 17(3)(b) to maintain
operational flexibility. When clause (a) was updated to
mandate a Three Member Committee for the ‘appropriate
authority,’ however clause (b) was left untouched to
empower the Government to appoint single officer
authorities for smaller jurisdiction, sub-divisions or specific
search and seizure tasks.
32. Thus, perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals that
Section 17(1) applies to the Central Government. While,
Section 17(2) applies to the State Government by which the
…..41/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
42
State Government by Notification under official gazette may
appoint one or more appropriate authorities for the whole
State as per Section 17(3)(a), for part of the State as per
Section 17(3)(b) to carry out the purpose of the Act. Sub-
section (3)(a) of Section 17 when appropriate authority is
appointed for the whole of the State or the Union Territory,
such authority would be vested within three members as
specified in sub-clause (I), (ii), and (iii). But when
appropriate authority is required to be appointed for the part
of the State Government, under Section 17(2), (3)(b) i.e. the
officer of such other rank not specified under Section 17(3)
(a)(i)(ii)(iii) by way of Notification of the State Government
published in the official gazette.
33. Section 17(4) of the PCPNDT Act provides function of
“Appropriate Authorities.”
34. In view of the multifarious functions assigned to the
Appropriate Authority, the Act contemplates constituting
…..42/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
43
Appropriate Authority both at the State level as well as the
District level or part of the State. In such a situation to
perform the various functions it is not unusual for the Act to
provide multiple Appropriate Authorities to perform the
multiple functions. Thus by reading the requirement of
Section 17(3)(a) into Section 17(3)(b) though it may be
desirable but it cannot be said that a single member
Appropriate Authority would be contrary to the said Statute
and thus incompetent to file the complaint. Further in terms
of Section 28(1) of he PCPNDT Act even a person duly
authorized by the Appropriate Authority can file a valid
complaint.
35. As observed above, the functions assigned to the
appropriate authority are multifarious and in view thereof
the Act contemplating appropriate authorities at State level
and District or part of the State level is duly conceived by
Sections 17(3)(a) and Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act.
…..43/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
44
36. The concept behind it that every time where raid is
conducted in different areas of the State, it cannot be
accepted that an officer of the Department of Law will be
available every time. This prima facie appears to be reason
why no corresponding amendment has been brought in
Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act. It is trite law that
when the language of the Section is plain and simple the
Court would not substitute its opinion about the desirability
to have a multi member committee even under Section 17
sub-section (3) Clause (b) of the Act. In view of the plain
language of Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act, it cannot
be held that even for part of State, a Multi Member
Committee would be a validly constituted as “Appropriate
Authority”.
37. This aspect is further considered by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Mukesh Rathore vs. State
of M.P., reported in 2020 Criminal Law Journal (CriLJ) 4094
…..44/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
45
and while interpreting Section 17(3)(a) and 17(3)(b) of the
PCPNDT Act, its is observed in paragraph No.16 as follows:
“16. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that
section 17(1) applies to the Central Government
while section 17(2) applies to the State
Government by which the State Government by a
notification under official gazette may appoint one
or more appropriate authorities for the whole State
as per Section 17(3)(a) or part of the State as per
Section 17(3)(b) to carry out the purposes of the
act having regard to the intensity of the problem of
pre-natal sex determination leading to female
foeticide. Subsection (3)(a) specifies when
appropriate authority is appointed for the whole of
the State or the Union territory, such Authority
would be vested within the three members as
specified in sub clause (i), (ii) and (iii). But when
Appropriate Authority is required to be appointed
for a part of the State then under Sections 17(2),
(3)(b), i.e. the officer of such other rank not
specified under Section 17(3)(a)(i)(ii)(iii), by way
of a notification of the State Government published
in the official gazette.”
…..45/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
46
38. Thus, the consistent view is that the appropriate
authority for whole State consists of three members, whereas
the appropriate authority for the part of the State would be
one member committee.
39. Thus, even by giving a purposive construction to
Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT Act, the acts performed by
the Appropriate Authority of filing complaints pursuant to a
valid notification cannot be quashed.
Conclusion:
40. Thus, the Act contemplates constituting appropriate
authority both at the State level as well as the District level
or part of the State. In such a situation, the legislature in its
wisdom amended only clause (a) of sub-section 17(3) and
not clause (b) to sub-section 17(3) which was retained as it
existed prior to the amendment. Thus, only if the
Appropriate Authority is appointed for the whole of the State
or Union Territory it would be required to be a multi-member
…..46/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
47
authority. However when Appropriate Authority is appointed
for part of the Union Territory or part of the State, a single
member Appropriate Authority can competently be
appointed.
41. A provision, which has not been provided by the
Legislature, cannot be inserted.
42. Admittedly, the Act is social welfare legislation. It is
settled law that to prevent injustice and to promote the
justice and to effectuate the object and purpose of the
welfare legislation, broad interpretation should be given,
even if it requires a departure from literal constructions.
43. Considering the object behind the PCPNDT Act, the
provisions are made in the Act and it is to be interpreted as
mentioned in the said Act. A provision which has not been
provided by legislature cannot be inserted by its own. To
implement the provisions of the PCPNDT Act in its true spirit
…..47/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
48
and letter, the provisions are inserted and timely it was
amended.
44. It would be necessary to take into consideration the
intent of the legislature behind enactment of the Act. The
Act intends to prevent misuse for sex determination leading
to female foeticide and declining a sex ratio in India. The Act
has further strengthened in 2003 with the inclusion of
provisions for more stringent provisions to ensure better
implementation. The amended Act increased the penalties for
violation and made it mandatory for all ultrasound clinics
and machines to be registered and monitored and paved the
way for establishment of State and National Boards to
oversee the implementation of the Act.
45. Thus, the law has to be interpreted in a way that the
object of enactment is not defeated, and in case of any
conflict between two provisions in a statute, the Courts must
…..48/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
49
strive to give effect to both by harmonizing them with each
other as far as possible.
46. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Rasila S.Mehta vs. Custodian, Nariman Bhavan, Mumbai,
reported in AIR 2011 SC 2122, it is incumbent upon the
Courts to interpret the statute in such a way that it protects
and advances the purpose of enactment, and not to adopt
any technical or restricted interpretation of the provisions
which would negate the legislative intent and policy. Since
the enactment of PCPNDT Act, there have been several
efforts for enforcing its provisions, ensuring its better
implementation and even prescribing necessary guidelines.
The PCPNDT Act was amended by the Parliament in the year
2003 to strengthen its provisions and improve its
implementation. However, Section 17(3)(b) was not
amended even it was not touched.
…..49/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
50
47. Thus, the legislature intentionally omitted
corresponding amendment in Section 17(3)(b) of the
PCPNDT Act to maintain operational flexibility.
48. In view the above observations, at the State Level, by
way of amendment, only Clause (a) was amended and
Clause (b) was kept to be un-amended. The indication
aforesaid is clear and, therefore, the interpretation by
learned counsel for petitioners cannot be given. As already
observed, the provision which has not been provided by the
legislature cannot be inserted by the court and, therefore, we
are unable to accept the submissions made by learned
counsel for petitioners.
Challenge No.2:
49. By these petitions, petitioners have further challenged
seizure of machines by the appropriate authority.
50. Perusal of the documents reveals that the FIR was
registered against petitioners after conducting the inspection
…..50/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
51
of the Ultrasound Sonography Center run by petitioners. The
inspection report placed on record shows that there was
contravention of various provisions. The book required to be
kept in the OPD as well as in the cabin of the Medical
Practitioner was not found. The consent letters were without
the signatures of the patients. The Forms on which
signatures were required were also found to be blank. Thus,
it is obligatory and mandatory to maintain all records, charts,
forms, reports, consent letters, and all other documents
required as per the provisions of Section 29 of the PCPNDT
Act and Rule 9 framed thereunder. During the inspection,
respondent No.2 verified the records maintained by both
petitioners and on verification, the above said irregularities
and illegalities were noted. Moreover, during the inspection,
it was found that for the period from 1.1.2022 to 8.1.2022
on the reference slips, no details were mentioned by the
doctors who referred the patients for sonography and also
conducted the sonography by the same person and as such
…..51/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
52
there is a contravention of Section 29 and Rule 9(4) of the
PCPNDT Act. The signatures of the patients were also not
found at proper place in all requisite consent forms and
Form-F as required under the the PCPNDT Act. During the
inspection, it was also found that the OnLine Forms were
filled on 10.1.2022 for the required sonography on 8.1.2022.
The above contraventions committed by both petitioners,
admittedly, are serious in nature.
51. Thus, it reveals that petitioners have not maintained
records which are required to be maintained in view of the
various provisions and, therefore, the machines/equipment
were seized by the appropriate authority. The first part of
Section 30 safeguards interest of the genetic laboratory or
genetic clinic etc, which provides that search and seizure can
be authorized only if appropriate authority has reason to
believe that the offence under the PCPNDT Act has been
committed/is being committed and the reason to believe is
not mere a formality. Before asking the search and seizure in
…..52/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
53
terms of Section 30, there must be sufficient material on the
basis of which the appropriate authority has reason to believe
that the offence under the PCPNDT Act has been committed/
have been committed.
52. Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act reads thus:
“30. Power to search and seize records, etc. –
1. If the Appropriate Authority has reason to believe
that an offence under this Act has been or is being
committed at any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic
Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any other place, such
Authority or any officer authorized thereof in this
behalf may, subject to such rules as may be
prescribed, enter and search at all reasonable times
with such assistance, if any, as such authority or
officer considers necessary, such Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic or any
other place and examine any record, register,
document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any
other material object found therein and seize and seal
the same if such Authority or officer has reason to…..53/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
54
believe that it may furnish evidence of the
commission of an office punishable under this Act.
2. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) relating to searches and seizures
shall, so far as may be, apply to every search or
seizure made under this Act.”
53. Thus, the condition precedent for search of a clinic is
that, an appropriate authority must have reason to believed
that an offence under the Act of 1994 has been committed or
is being committed. Section 30 is the very drastic provision
which grants power to the appropriate authority or any
officer authorized by it to enter a genetic laboratory / genetic
clinic / any other place to examine the record found therein,
to seize the same and even seal the same. First part of Sub-
section (1) of Section 30 safeguards these centers /
laboratories from arbitrary search and seizure action. The
safeguard is that search and seizure can be authorized only if
the appropriate authority has reason to believe that an
…..54/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
55
offence under the Act of 1994 has been committed or is
being committed. The phrase “reason to believe” – A person
is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient
cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.
54. It is now a trite law that whenever a statute provides
for `reason to believe’, either the reasons should appear on
the face of the notice or they must be available on the
materials which had been placed before him.
55. It must be a decision of the appropriate authority or
the single member of the appropriate authority who
authorizes search that there was a reason to believe.
Respondent No.2 along with the inspection team visited
premises of the hospital of petitioners at Arvi on 18.1.2022 to
verify and confirm the compliance with the provision of the
PCPNDT Act and the Rules framed thereunder. At that time,
both petitioners were not in the hospital. On enquiry, it was
learnt that the hospital is run by petitioners and they are
…..55/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
56
owners of Sonography Centre. Respondent No.2 inspected
the Sonograhy Centre in the presence of panchas and
witnesses. During the inspection, it was found that following
equipment were installed being used by petitioners in the
Genetic Clinic; (1) Sonography Machine (non portable)
Siemens Sonoline along with its attachment; and (2)
Sonography Machine of Siemens Sonoline along with its
attachment.
56. In view of Section 29 read with Rule 9 of the PCPNDT
Act, It is obligatory and mandatory to maintain all records,
charts, forms, reports, and consent letters and all other
documents which were not found to be maintained by
petitioners. The inspection team noted that the copy of the
PCPNDT Act was not found in OPD, which is contravention
of Rule 17(2) of the PCPNDT Act. The consent letters were
filled, but signatures of patients were not found on some
letters as required under Section 5 of the PCPNDT Act. The
person conducting Ultra-Sonography on pregnant woman
…..56/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
57
shall keep a complete record thereof in clinic in such a
manner as may be prescribed. The contravention of the same
was also found and thereby petitioners have contravened
Sections 5 and 6. The owner of Sonography Centre has not
maintained details of patients in the register as required
under Section 29(1) and Rule (9)(4) of the PCPNDT Act.
During inspection, it was further found that Sonography
Form-F were found, but signatures of patients were not there.
There were no declaration forms required under the PCPNDT
Act. Even, the signatures of Doctor were not found who
performed Sonography.
57. It is further noted that monthly reports sent were
mismatching. The reference slips for the period from
1.1.2022 to 8.1.2022 wherein names of Doctors who referred
patients were also not mentioned. Thus, there was a
contravention of Section 29 and Rule 9(4) of the PCPNDT
Act.
…..57/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
58
58. Thus, on satisfying that there is contravention of
various provisions and on satisfying itself, the appropriate
authority seized and sealed the said machines. Therefore, as
far as search and seizure is concerned, no illegality is
committed by the authority and, therefore, contention of
petitioners that search and seizure is not according to the
provisions of the law, is also not sustainable.
59. As already observed by us that, the Notification issued
appointing the appropriate authority by the State
Government is in view of Section 17(3)(b) of the PCPNDT
Act and there is no requirement of Multi Member Committee
when appropriate authority is appointed for the part of the
State. The search and seizure conducted by the appropriate
authority, after receiving various documents and material, is
sufficient to satisfy themselves that there there is a “reason to
believe” and after satisfying themselves, search and seizure
was conducted and, therefore, no illegality is committed
while doing the seizure and seal of the said machines.
…..58/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
59
60. In view of the discussion above, petitions being devoid
of merits are liable to be dismissed and the same are
dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE At this stage :
1. Learned counsel, appearing through the Video
Conferencing, for petitioners seeks Stay to the proceeding.
2. By order of this court dated 6.6.2023, the Stay was
granted in view of the decision in the case of Help Welfare
Group Society vs. The State of Haryana and ors and ors
(supra).
3. We have already dealt with the said decision so also
considered decision of the various High Courts and,
thereafter, came to conclusion that the Notification issued
by respondent No.1 is valid as per provisions of law and,
therefore, we do not think that the Stay can be extended
…..59/-
Judgment
wp391 & 3918.23.odt
60
further and, therefore, the prayer of learned counsel for
petitioners is rejected.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BrWankhede !!
Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge .....60/-
Date: 18/07/2026 10:22:51
