Dr. (Prof.) Mahesh Baldwa,
M.D,D.C.H, FIAP, MBA, LL.B,LL.M , Ph. D(law)
SENIOR PEDIATRICIAN & MEDICOLEGAL ADVISOR
Formerly Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at T.N. Medical College and Nair Hospital, Mumbai-400008
Ex. Asst. Professor JJ Hosp, Grant medical college
Ex.Professor, paper setter & examiner of law to postgraduate students of University Department of Law, University of Mumbai
Baldwa Hospital, Sumer Nagar,S.V. Road,
Borivali (West)Mumbai 400 092
Cell 09322990138
INTRODUCTION
A case can be registered against doctors for performing a test and revealing the sex of the foetus to the mother and also for not putting up notices that sex determination tests are illegal, not filling the mandatory F-form and not maintaining records.
BACK GROUND
In the last 10 years, only in three cases the guilty were awarded both rigorous imprisonment and fine after they were caught red-handed carrying out pre-natal sex determination tests in sting operations. Hence Voluntary Health Association of Punjab Vs. Union of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 349 Of 2006, a NGO filed a writ petition in the Hon’ able Supreme Court of India in 2006 against Union of India and Ors., for effective implementation of Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. As for one reason or the other, the practice of female infanticide still prevails. Saying the authorities concerned should take steps to seize the machines which have been used illegally and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules there under and the seized machines can also be confiscated under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and be sold, in accordance with law. It further said various Courts in this country should take steps to dispose of all pending cases under the Act, within a period of six months. Communicate this order to the Registrars of various High Courts, who will take appropriate follow up action with due intimation to the concerned Courts. Therefore a decision to the effect of punishing state AA if not implementing the PC PNDT Act correctly was taken by the State Advisory Committee constituted for curbing female foeticide by implementing the PCPNDT Act. The Civil Surgeons are AA under the PCPNDT Act in the districts and they are empowered by the Act to take action against the hospital or ultrasound centers not obeying the law or not maintaining the records according to law – Ss. 217, IPC, states that any public servant disobeying directions of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, or with both.
ACTION TAKEN IN MAHARASHTRA
The Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) has found nine radiologists from across the state guilty of performing sex-determination tests in the last three months. It also found that 55 USG centers were not maintaining proper records as prescribed under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act.
After issuing suspension orders against 21 doctors for flouting provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC-PNDT) Act, the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) now plans to hold a special meeting to decide on the other 48 pending cases. “Of the 4,293 USG centers across Maharashtra only 2,000 have been complying with the norms. The rest have not been submitting forms online,” said a health department official. “Of the defaulters nearly 1,195 are from Mumbai. The city has 1,200 USG centres which means only five have been filing reports online,” he added.
FFIS BIGGEST STUMBLING BLOCK
In a majority of the cases, Doctors are upset about being pulled up for technical lapses and incorrect filling of forms. Doctors have not being able to maintain records and other technical requirements under the PC-PNDT Act. FF under the PCPNDT Act records the medical history of a pregnant woman.
For instance, not filling FF properly is regarded as an offence related to sex determination. While doctors were filling the forms as per the rules, some lapses occur inadvertently, such as spelling mistakes. These technical errors should not amount to an offence like sex determination.
However, lower courts have passed conviction orders and more than 40 per cent of the doctors have appealed against the judgment. According to the Act, the punishment is three-year RI and Rs 10,000 fine.
They have also protested about the rule under which no sooner is the charges are framed against a doctor under the Act, his/her name is sent to the Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC). The council can take stern action like suspension or cancellation of the doctors’ registration.
SUMMARY OF CASES
Constitutional validity of PCPNDT act was challenged but was rejected. Out of the cases against doctors, most common reasons for filing RCC were not filling FF. secondly AA would surprisingly visit USG M and find the FF for that month which should be submitted on 5th of next month were made basis for filing RCC. In many cases USG M was sealed and registration suspended or canceled without following provisions of s.20 (1,2&3) without giving correct and cogent reasons and showing how it affected public interest. Some cases are filed for non renewal of USG M registration without giving reasons for renewal in next 90 days hence the USG M became deemed renewal. But AA filed cases against such clinics also leading to CWP filed in HC’s. it is heartening to note that most of them were quashed. Following is the tabulated summary of such PCPNDT cases
Abbreviations: AA = Appropriate authority, HC = High Court , JMFC = Judicial Magistrate first class , FF = FF, USG M = Ultrasound sono graphy Machine. USG= sono graphy Machine, Ss.=Section, RCC=Regular criminal case, CWP = Criminal Writ Petition
| SUMMARY OF CASES IN TABULATED FORMAT S.NO. | 1 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | BOMBAY HC AURANGABAD BENCH A.V.NIRGUDE, J. In Criminal Application no. 3500/2011 11th May, 2012 |
| Parties | Dr. Alka Gite & ors v/s The State of Maharashtra |
| Action by AA | panchanama, took away “incomplete” forms ‘F’ along with other related documents, sealed two USG , served show cause notice criminal case filed |
| JMFC | Issued process for not filling up FF item Nos.9 and 13 |
| Observation of HC | FF are item Nos.9 and 13 not filled Gynecologist who referred did not mention history of genetic or medical disease , then there is no reason why Radiologist would fill item No.9. item No.13 asteric mark on the word ‘recommended’ clearly suggests that this item is required to be filled up by Laboratory and not by ultrasound Clinic. Allegation of not filling item no. 9 & 12 would not attract contravention of Ss. s 5 or 6 of the Act. some of the AA are sealing the machines and harassing the owner/doctors on flimsy grounds like, not writing the full name of radiologists, writing only initials of the doctors or writing the short forms. |
| Reason | item Nos.9 and 13 requires information regarding history of genetic or medical disease in the family of the patient if it existed which helps doctor to do USG exam. but All the patients in question were referred for USG test for examining as to whether the child is healthy ? The since provisions of this Act are very strict, the appropriate authority before taking action against the medical practitioner must act meticulously. Also some AA are filing cases for simple spelling or grammatical mistakes in records/FF . |
| judgment | In view of this, the application is allowed. RCC No. 198 of 2011 quashed |
| S.NO. | 2 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | Bombay HC NAGPUR BENCH, WRIT PETITION NO. 5231 OF 2011 S. A. BOBDE and P. B. VARALE, JJ. 07th MARCH, 2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Dashrath Shamrao Shinde, V/S. State of Maharashtra, |
| Action by AA | AA sealed USG M and order of suspending the registration . No shows cause notice. |
| JMFC | No case filed by AA before JFMC |
| Observation of HC | Alleged incomplete ‘F’ form. No shows cause notice, no opportunity of personal hearing as per Ss. 20 of pcpndt Act, AA passed order of sealing, suspending the registration is without mentioning the reasons and also do not reflect that the order is passed ‘in public interest’. It gave reason of deficiency in maintaining ‘F’ Form register. AA did not allege that petitioner was found involved in some sex determination. |
| Reason | Impugned order reveals that the order is not passed under sub Ss. 1, 2 & 3 of Ss. 20 of the PCPNDT Act so as to dispense with the issuance of show cause notice, nor it is done in public interest. Proper procedure for sealing and suspending registration is not followed. In view of this fact, we are of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from noncompliance of the requirements of Ss. 20 ( 1, 2 & 3) of the PCPNDT Act. |
| judgment | The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.12.2010 is quashed and set aside. |
| S.NO. | 3 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | Bombay HC AURANGABAD BENCH, CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 757 OF 2012 A.V. NIRGUDE 03.05.2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Ravindra s/o. Shivappa Karmudi Versus The State of Maharashtra. & Anr. |
| Action by AA | FF not filled, recorded a panchanama. Show Cause Notice issued doctor replied immediately, AA alleged that the applicant had not filled up “F” forms completely. Within past two days, the applicant said shortcoming found in FF were inadvertent and he would take care in future. Despite this, filed criminal case |
| JMFC | R.C.C. No.99 of 2011, is pending in the court of J.M.F.C., Ausa, Dist. Latur. Learned Magistrate issued process for offence punishable under Ss. s 23 and 25 Magistrate immediately without recording evidence before charge, framed charge against the applicant on 13.12.2011. |
| Observation of HC | HC application made under Ss. 482 of the Cr. P.C. seeks quashment of J.M.F.C. case In R.C.C. allegation made against applicant is that in three F forms of patients, by name, Smt. Dipali, Smt. Asha and Smt. Suvarna, failed to Mention, how many children they have previous to the date of examination. I perused the register and found three forms of above mentioned patients and I also found that the applicant did not mention in those forms in the register the number of children of these patients. The consent cum declarations of the above mentioned patients are found properly filled up. Fortunately for the applicant, in those forms, the information regarding number of children of these patients was filled up and such information was properly filled up. The application for quashment should, therefore, succeed. Before I conclude this judgment, I must also hold that the learned Magistrate who issued process to the applicant did not take proper care before passing the order of issuance of process. In order to examine the case I first perused the photostat copy of the complaint. On the face of it the complaint is not properly drafted, neither it is properly typed. Even prayer clause is conspicuously absent. The complainant did not mention as to under what provision of the Act, the offence is committed by the applicant. The complaint only mentions Ss. 23 and 25 of the Act for asserting that the applicant should be convicted under these provisions. But, if at all, the applicant had not filled up FF properly in the three cases, it would amount of offence punishable under Ss. 4(3) proviso, read with, Ss. 5 & 6, read with, Ss. 23 & 25 of the Act. Complainant clearly mentioned in hat in three forms of the patients, who are named above, found incomplete. If such is complaint, learned Magistrate before issuance of process ought to have perused the three forms and ought to have formed his opinion as to whether a case is made out for issuance of process. |
| Reason | FF includes consent cum declaration of the patients while filling up FF. On the other hand, main FF which are maintained in a register were also found properly filled up except the information regarding number of children of the patient. Complainant ought to have read these two parts of FF together to form opinion as to whether the record is maintained or not maintained properly. I think the complainant made this complaint out of either over enthusiasm or due to pressure from his superiors. Learned Magistrate committed another blunder when he did not realize that this was a warrant case, in which, evidence before framing of charge was required to be recorded. The applicant/accused and the complainant are present before the Court who told me that the Magistrate has so far not recorded any evidence in this case and yet as mentioned above on 13.12.2011, learned Magistrate framed charge against the applicant. This is certainly unpardonable and absolutely illegal. Unfortunately, a copy of charge is also annexed with the application and after I went through the same I found that the drafting of the charge is incorrect, unnecessary and unconnected to the complaint. Even the spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes are not corrected by the Magistrate before putting signature on it. I am very sorry to note that despite laudable object of the Act and Rules made thereunder, the Authorities under this Act are not taking proper care before filing cases against medical professionals. The provisions of the Act are quite strict to the accused and in order to balance such strictness in the provisions of the Act, prosecutors/complainants are expected to take utmost care while taking action against the accused. They must follow the procedure prescribed under the Act meticulously as following such procedure meticulously is mandatory |
| judgment | The RCC filed against the applicant should, therefore, fail. Same stands quashed. The Criminal Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. |
| S.NO. | 4 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | BOMBAY HC AURANGABAD BENCH CWP NO. 696 OF 2011 A.V.NIRGUDE DATE : 11th May, 2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Shalini Balasaheb Karad V/S The State of Maharashtra & Anr. |
| Action by AA | AA found that FF not filled up completely for 13 patients. The AA sealed the USG M. issued show cause notice and despite doctor’s explanation filed RCC |
| JMFC | On the same day of filing RCC, the learned Magistrate issued process holding that the record prima facie discloses commission of offence punishable under Ss. 23 (1) and 25 of the Act and Rule 9 (4) of the Rules |
| Observation of HC | Writ petition filed under Articles 226, 227 and under Ss. 482 of Cr. P.C. is challenging order dated 14th July, 2011, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, for quashment of RCC No. 187 of 2011, I perused said incomplete forms. All the forms that were seized at the time of inspection are of patients, who were admittedly examined during June, 2011. As said Above, on 14th June, the inspection took place. The question is, whether the incompleteness of the forms would amount to contravention in the facts and circumstances. The answer is in the negative. In order to examine this aspect, one must read Ss. 4 and Rule 9, In view of this, the petitioner was required to sent monthly report for the month of June, 2011, by 5th July, 2011. The inspection however took place on 14th June, 2011. So, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to complete the forms (records) till the appropriate date i. e. 5th July, 2011. |
| Reason | The AA in this case ought to have ignored the forms for the month of june with respect to the patients. He ought to have examined the forms of the patients who were examined in earlier months such as March, April, May of 2011. In view of this, the allegation against her even if are truthful would not amount to contravention of Ss. 5 of the Act. The learned Magistrate ought to have noticed obvious error committed by the AA and ought to have held that this case was not good enough for issuance of process. |
| judgment | RCC No. 187 of 2011 pending before the Court of JMFC stands quashed and the impugned order stands set aside |
| S.NO. | 5 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | Bombay HC NAGPUR BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 683 OF 2013 B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND S. B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : JUNE 13, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT : JUNE 21, 2013 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Sadanand M. Ingle V/S State of Maharashtra & Anr. |
| Action by AA | assails legality and validity of order dated 21/12/2012 passed by the Civil Surgeon, Buldana rejecting application dated 03/8/2012 for renewal of the registration |
| JMFC | |
| Observation of HC | By this writ petition, the petitioner assails legality and validity of order dated 21/12/2012 passed by the Civil Surgeon, Buldana rejecting application dated 03/8/2012 for renewal of the registration order dated 21/12/2012 the petitioner, who runs a USG M was issued registration in 2007 and it was due to expire on 08/01/2012. on 19/11/2011 the petitioner made an application for renewal and before any decision for renewal was taken, the registration of the USG M was suspended on 21/12/2012 this is done following seizure of USG M in a raid on the centre on 17/12/2011. the order dated 21/12/2011 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 163 of 2012 and this Court by its judgment and order dated 07/3/2012 set aside the order dated 21/12/2011. under Ss. 17(2) of the PCPNDT Act, the State Government has been empowered to appoint by notification in the official gazette one or more AA. Also Sub Ss. S Ss. 20 (1) and (3) of mandate that cancellation or suspension of a USG M must be for reasons recorded in writing and also be in the public interest. under rule 8(6), there is a deemed renewal of registration of the USG centre, and, in this case, there was indeed such renewal as after making of the application on 03/8/2012, the petitioner was not communicated any rejection of the application within the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. This is another reason that impugned order as violative of provisions of the Act that even the action of raiding USG M of the petitioner by AA is illegal and actuated by malice arising out of professional rivalry. Impugned order has been passed by a Government Officer, who considers himself as an authority above the law and who has set himself out to manipulate the law to serve his own interest. In support, he has referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as regards recording of reasons in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoiar Vs. District Collector, Raigarh & others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 (paras 42 and 46) and also the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the nature of law being science of what is good and just and being protective of a civilized society recorded in para 1 of the judgment rendered in the case of Mehmood Nayyar Azam Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 1. At this stage, it is necessary to advert to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as regards necessity of recording of reasons in the case of Ravi Bhoiar (supra). When the law requires recording of reasons for taking a decision, law also demands that reasons recorded are adequate and show application of mind so that anyone aggrieved by the decision, gets sufficient notice of material used against him and can adopt appropriate course of action to redress his grievance. If the recorded reasons exhibit non application of mind or are insufficient, there would be no reasons in law. In this case, as already discussed above, there have been some reasons recorded in the impugned order, but, the reasons so recorded do not seem to be showing any application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case by AA and, therefore, applying ratio of the law so laid down, we find that in the instant case also there have been virtually no cogent reasons recorded for passing of the impugned order and as such, the impugned order is unfair and arbitrary on this count |
| Reason | Ss. 20 of the Act, deals with cancellation or suspension of registration. We are concerned in this case with Ss. 20(3), which requires AA to form an opinion based on some objective material that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest to suspend registration of a genetic clinic or centre. The provision also mandates the appropriate authority to record reasons in writing. This provision begins with non obstante clause and, therefore, the sub Ss. stands on its own footing empowering the AA to suspend registration for a temporary period or cancel it without even issuing show cause notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the genetic clinic or centre. This sub Ss. and also sub Ss.(1) and (2), it may be stressed, do not refer to seal or seizure of the USG machine. Ss. 30 confer power upon the AA to carry out search and seizure at the genetic clinic where the AA has a reason to believe that some offence under the Act has been or is being committed. It also authorizes the AA or other authorized officer to seize and seal any record or material object found at the centre. In the explanation to rule 12 of Rules, , the terms, ‘seize’ and ‘seizure’ have been explained to include, ‘seal’ and ‘sealing’, respectively. So, Ss. 30 of the Act, read with rule 12 of the Rules, makes it abundantly clear that the AA can carry out not only the search at the genetic clinic or centre but also seal the relevant record and material objects with a view to use them as evidence of the commission of offence punishable under the provisions of the Act, . The power under this section comes alive only when the AA reasonably believes that an offence under the Act, has been or is being committed. This is the only condition precedent prescribed under Ss. 30 for exercise of power under it. But, there is no reference therein, whatsoever, for suspension of the registration of genetic clinic or centre. Moreover, in the present facts, the act of putting seal is under the impression that as renewal was refused on 21/12/2012, use of the machine for genetic procedures by present petitioner thereafter was not legal. From the characteristic features of Ss. 20(3) and |
| judgment | Impugned order dated 21/12/2012 is set aside. The respondents are directed to remove the seal of USG M , forthwith. |
| S.NO. | 6 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | BOMBAY HC CWP No. 945 of 2005 and Criminal Application No. 3647 of 2005 Decided On: 13.06.2005 V.G. Palshikar and V.C. Daga, |
| Parties & judgment | Vinod Soni and Anr. Vs. Union of India (UOI) |
| Action by AA | Not applicable |
| JMFC | Not applicable |
| Observation of HC | By this petition, the petitioners who are married couple seek to challenge the constitutional validity of PCPNDT Act. petition Contains basically two challenges to the enactment. First, it violates Article 14 of the constitution and second, that it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to life or personal liberty cannot be expanded to mean that the right of personal liberty includes the personal liberty to determine the sex of a child which may come into existence. The conception is a physical phenomenon. Right to bring into existence a life in future with a choice to determine the sex of that life cannot in itself to be a right. |
| Reason | Even if both are competent and healthy to give birth to a child, conception need not necessarily follow. That being a factual medical position, claiming right to choose the sex of a child which is come into existence as a right to do or not to do something which cannot be called a right. The right to personal liberty cannot expand by any stretch of imagination, to liberty to prohibit coming into existence of a female foetus or male foetus which shall be for the Nature to decide. To claim a right to determine the existence of such foetus or possibility of such foetus come into existence, is a claim of right which may never exist. |
| judgment | the petition does not make even a prima facie case for violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence it is dismissed. |
| S.NO. | 7 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | HC BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH CWP NO. 407 OF 2011 A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 19.04.2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Mrs. Uma Shankarrao Rachewad Versus AA , Nanded |
| Action by AA | “AA ” found following irregularities (i) On number of “F” forms, word “N.A.” was used. (ii) The petitioner did not submit reply to show cause notice dated 22.03.2011, issued by the Medical Officer of Municipal Corporation. (iii) “F” forms were not filled up of cases which were attended between 08.03.2011 to 26.03.2011. (iv) Consent/Declaration parts of FF were not found of the cases which were examined between April 2009 to 31st March, 2010. (v) Combined board giving warning to the patients in English and Marathi, that pre-natal sex determination is not made in the clinic, was not found. Because of these irregularities, the AA lodged RCC. It is not a case where decoy patient was sent for collecting evidence. |
| JMFC | R.C.C. No. 421 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under Ss. S 4(3),5,23,29 & 30 of PCPNDT act |
| Observation of HC | This writ petition is filed seeking quashment of R.C.C. No. 421 of 2011, petitioner is a Gynecologist, practicing at Nanded, since 1985 and has a maternity hospital and ultra-sound clinic at Nanded. It is alleged that FF of the patients examined after 8th March, 2011, were not properly filled up and that on many forms, word “N.A.” is used by the petitioner. If one goes behind the reason, as to why filling up of FF is made compulsory, one would understand the importance of the same and the importance of the entries recorded in it. In order to understand this reason, one must read Ss. s 4 & 5 of the Act. Using of word “N.A.” in the forms, thus does not amount to incomplete filling of the form. Besides this, FF is prescribed for genetic clinic, ultrasound center and genetic center is common hence word “N.A.” is used for unnecessary information the word “N.A.” while filling up the forms would not amount to maintaining incomplete record or would not amount to deficiency or inaccuracy in the information filled in the form. Second allegation is that the petitioner did not fill up FF of the cases which she examined between 08.03.2011 to 26.03.2011. The cases, which are examined between 08.03.2011 to 26.03.2011, were thus the cases which were examined few days prior to the date of inspection. Only names of the patients were mentioned on them. Other particulars are not mentioned. Nonetheless, latter part of FF , namely, consent and declaration form, was properly filled up. Next allegation is that the petitioner did not keep consent/declaration form of the cases which she examined between April 2009 till 30.04.2010. The main part of FF of these cases, are available and were found in the clinic. This consent /declaration is separately kept and maintained on loose sheet, though, it is integral part of FF . It appears that this practice is followed because a copy of the consent/declaration of the pregnant woman is required to be given to her. Office copies of such consent/declaration are kept in a file separately. In this background one must appreciate what happened to the cases examined by the petitioner during 01.04.2009 till 30.04.2010, FF of such cases were found in the clinic, but consents/declarations were not found there. In view of this, apparently there appears contravention of Ss. 4 at the hands of the petitioner. Ss. 4 is quoted above and if one peruses the proviso to sub-Ss. (3), it is seen that the But the proviso further provides that such lapse on the part of the Doctor would amount to contravention of provisions of Ss. s 5 & 6, unless the contrary is proved by the accused. Now, when the AA and his staff went for inspection of the petitioner’s clinic on 31.03.2011 and when they did not find the record of the cases between April 2009 to April 2010, at such situation what is expected of the AA? What was required to be done at that stage in view this rather insignificant contravention? I think, in view of the proviso specially the term “unless contrary is proved”, the AA or the staff assigned for the inspection must ask the Doctor who is likely to be made accused in a proposed case, as to what had happened to that part of the record. The petitioner could have certainly answered this question. If such answer is not found satisfactory, then alone the Doctor and in this case the petitioner could have been the accused of committing contravention of the provisions of the law. There is nothing on record to show that the AA demanded production of this record and the petitioner or her staff did not provide the same. The petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to produce the record. Since the record that was not found in the clinic was quite old there was possibility that it was kept at some other place. The reason why I expect meticulousness on the part of the AA and his staff is that the legislature has made provisions of this Act quite stringent for the accused. The Supreme Court in similar case in the judgment of Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana (2009)8 SCC 539, observed as under:- “The law under the aforesaid Act (N.D.P.S. Act) being stringent to the persons involved in the field of illicit drug traffic and drug abuse, the legislature time and again has made some of its provisions obligatory for the prosecution to comply with, which the courts have interpreted it to be mandatory.” |
| Reason | In the light of this, I am inclined to hold that there is no prima facie case of contravention of Proviso to ss.3 of S.4 of the Act. The last and the indeed least allegation against the petitioner is that she did not display a board in her clinic that prenatal sex determination is not done in her clinic. The complainant admitted that such boards were found at two places. At the entrance of the clinic one board in Marathi was found. One more in English was found affixed on the door of ultra-USG room. These boards were sufficient compliance of Rule 17, which provides that the ultrasound clinic should permanently display on board a notice in English and local language. The complainant somehow assumed that such board should be in English and in Marathi at one place. In view of this, there is no prima facie case seen on this point in the complaint. |
| judgment | Hence, the CWP is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B) and disposed of. 16. The sealed record, which was opened on the direction of this Court, shall be re-sealed in the presence of Shirastedar of this Court. |
| S.NO. | 8 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | HC BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH CWP NO. 408 OF 2011 A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 02.05.2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Mrs. Meena Balaprasad Dhondge, Versus AA , Nanded |
| Action by AA | “AA ” found following irregularities (i) The doctor did not put her signature on Form “F” of patients who were examined between 20.01.2011 to 04.03.2011. (ii) Form “F” of patients who were examined between 04.03.2011 to 30.03.2011 was found blank except the signature of patients on consent-cum-declaration annexed to it. (iii) The petitioner-accused did not fill up Form “F” in respect of sr.no.7. Because of these irregularities, the AA lodged the complaint. It is not a case where decoy case was sent for collecting evidence. |
| JMFC | R.C.C. No. 422 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under Ss. S 4(3),5,23,29 & 30 of the Pre-conception and PCPNDT Act |
| Observation of HC | This writ petition is filed seeking quashment of Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No. 422 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under Ss. S 4(3),5,23,29 & 30 of PCPNDT Act the petitioner is a Gynecologist and practicing at Nanded, since 2004 and has ultrasound clinic at Nanded registered main allegation against the present petitioner is that she did not sign form “F” of patients who were examined by her between 20th January, 2011 to 31st March, 2011. In some cases, she did not even sign the consent-cum declaration of the patients In this back ground one must examine as to how much importance to the filled up forms “F” should be given. No doubt as said above, the filling up of such forms and maintaining the record in clinic is mandatory and failure to do so would amount to contravention of Ss. s 5 and 6 of the Act. But the question is, whether in this case the complainant was entitled to prosecute the petitioner for not maintaining the record properly? The answer is in negative. The patients admittedly have signed the consent-cum declaration form in all these cases. This part of the form is not capable of being conveyed online and for that physical copy of consent-cum-declaration with signature of patient is necessary and such physical copy of consent-cum-declaration is available on record. Even if such consent-cum-declaration is not signed by doctor for similar reasons mentioned above, the same can be dispensed with or cannot be taken and/or absence of the same cannot be held to be contravention of Ss. s 5 and 6. It is only after completing that chore; he would prepare a report and sent it by 5th day of next month. The expectation of learned A.P.P. that the doctor must fill up the form immediately after examination etc. is rather farfetched and overzealous. The last allegation is about column No.7 of the FF. It is alleged that the petitioner did not fill up the particulars in column no.7 of Form “F”. The explanation of the doctor is similar to above that she had punctually entered the particulars in respect of item no.7 (referral information) in Form “F” when she filled up same online. On perusal of the copies of online Forms, this information is seen to have been filled up. Incidentally all the patients are referred by petitioner herself for USG. The petitioner admittedly is a Gynecologist and obviously she is required ultra-sound examination of her patients who are pregnant and expecting. I noticed that it does not make out case against the petitioner. |
| Reason | I perused the original record and confirmed this shortcoming in completing the record of patients in form “F”. However, the doctor very clearly mentioned in the Petition that she has been sending the information of each patient online to the authorities appointed under the Act on day-today basis. I perused copy one of the forms so filled up online and found that all relevant information is filled up in it. This assertion of the petitioner has not been denied by the respondent – State in their reply. Filling up all form “F” in all respect is mandatory and contravention of the same would amount to contravention of Ss. 5 and 6 of the Act. The record shows that the State of Maharashtra started website by name www.savethebabygirl.com from 10th May, 2010. Website is accessible by Gynecologist, Radiologist and Director of the clinic registered under the Act with their secret password. The State encouraged them to log on to this site and fill up form “F” every day of the patients they had examined. It is also common ground that this scheme is voluntary and is initiated in Nanded district some time prior to June, 2010. The Collector of Nanded acknowledged the fact that the petitioner here has been filling up information of her patients, online every day. A letter dated 4th June, 2010 written by the Collector is placed on record and is not denied by the State. Pursuant to this information that has come on record, I asked learned counsel for the petitioner to show me the information of patient, the petitioner was posting online every day. A printed copy of such information is shown to me and I find that the information is filled up in FF “. It is thus clear that the petitioner stated that she has been filling up the form “F” online and sending the same to the authorities under the Act on daily basis. If the petitioner alone could send this information online the authenticity of the same cannot be doubted and is not doubted. |
| judgment | It is thus clear that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Hence, the CWP is allowed |
| S.NO. | 9 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | HC BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH CWP NO. 406 OF 2011 A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 02.05.2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Tushar Rangrao Patil, Versus AA , Nanded |
| Action by AA | AA visited the petitioner’s clinic and found following irregularities :- (i) The doctor did not put her signature on Form “F” of patients who were examined between 20.01.2011 to 04.03.2011. (ii) Form “F” of patients who were examined between 04.03.2011 to 30.03.2011 was found blank except the signature of patients on consent-cum-declaration annexed to it. (iii) The petitioner-accused did not fill up Form “F” in respect of sr.no.7. Because of these irregularities, the AA lodged the complaint. It is not a case where decoy case was sent for collecting evidence. |
| JMFC | Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No. 402 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under Ss. S 4(3),5,23,29 & 30 of PCPNDT Act |
| Observation of HC | writ petition is filed seeking quashment of Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No. 402 of 2011, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, for offences punishable under Ss. S 4(3),5,23,29 & 30 of PCPNDT Act petitioner is a Radiologist, practicing at Nanded since 2000 and he has Ultra-Sound Clinic at Nanded. Some doctors might follow the practice of getting FF Filled up through their clerks or they themselves would fill up the form at the end of the day. Filling up the form thus is for completing the record of patient who is subjected to test etc. The information that is filled in such form can be written down elsewhere and it can be filled up properly without committing any error in the FF finally. This facility to the doctor is available in view of the provisions of sub-rule 8. Doctor would be able to send monthly report only after he completes filling up of the forms of the patients which he examined throughout the month. It is only after completing that chore, he would prepare a report and sent it by 5th day of next month. The expectation of learned A.P.P. that the doctor must fill up the form immediately after examination etc. is rather farfetched and overzealous. It is alleged in the complaint that the board giving warning to the patient was not found at appropriate place in the Clinic of the petitioner. However, the panchanama clearly mentions that such board was found in the Clinic. Rule 17 is relevant provision for fixing such board. |
| Reason | On perusal of the form including the important note quoted above, it becomes clear that the petitioner was under obligation to mention in the form as to why he decided to examine a pregnant women patient with ultrasound technique. I perused the Forms which were seized at the time of inspection, and found that only last two forms were not filled up but on them I found signatures of patients. As regards forms of cases attended between 22nd March to 30th March, 2011, it is alleged and I accept it as truthful that the doctor filled up the forms in presence of inspecting party. This allegation is discussed in detail in later part of the judgment (Para No.9 onward) Amongst forms of earlier period, I saw this part of the form and found that the doctor has not mentioned in this part of the form as to how many children the patient had. But elsewhere in the form the petitioner has very clearly stated that this patient had one previous female child. In view of this, the inadvertent lapse is not contravention of provisions of Ss. s 5 and 6 of the Act at all. However, making correction in the form is not at all offence punishable under Ss. s 5 and 6 of the Act. It must be mentioned further that in addition to the address, the mobile telephone number of patient is mentioned in the form. The form “F” of the patient by name Sehnaz Begam, who was examined by the doctor on 26th February, 2011. The Form “F” is filled up in all respects, but the consent-cum-declaration was not filled up completely. It only bears the signature of the patient. But this consent-cum-declaration is a part of Form “F”, where the name, age and address including the number of children are mentioned. The lapse on the part of the doctor is in not repeating in consent-cum-declaration what is already written in the form. This does not amount to contravention of Ss. s 5 and 6. as soon as the patient is examined, the form “F” should be completely filled up in all respects. In support of this, he placed reliance on Rule 9 we are concerned with sub-rule 4 and 8. The sub-rule 4 r/w proviso to sub Ss. 3 of Ss. 4 of the Act require a doctor to keep record of each man or woman subjected to Diagnostic Test in form “F”. The record should be kept in form “F”. The record should be kept in form of register showing serial order, name, addresses of the patient etc. Sub-Rule 8 requires a doctor to send monthly report in respect of patients examined by him during the month. The report is required to be sent on or before 5th day of every month. This means that by 5th of April, 2011, the doctor in this case was expected to send his monthly report of the month of March, 2011. Rule 9 does not anywhere indicate that the form “F” should be filled up immediately after examination of a patient. All that is required to be done before the examination is obtaining consent of the patient concerned. Such consent can be taken on consent-cum-declaration part of the Form “F”. A Doctor should first explain to the patient as to the need of obtaining her or his consent. After that he or she would examine the patient. But the filling up the form “F” can be postponed by a day or two after writing down the relevant information on a piece of paper elsewhere. |
| judgment | It is thus clear that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Hence, the CWP is allowed |
| S.NO. | 10 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | HC BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2577 OF 2011 A.V. NIRGUDE,J. DATED : 03.05.2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Anant s/o. Trimbakrao Gitte V/s State Of Maharashtra. |
| Action by AA | Applicant said that on 19th September, 2010, at about 11.30 a.m. one Smt. Prerna a pregnant woman and her relatives went to the center and met accused Nos.2 & 3 (Dr. Mundhe and his wife Dr. S. Mundhe). She told them that she wanted to know sex of her foetus. Her relatives too supported her request. Accused Nos.2 & 3 then took Smt. Prerna to USG room and accused No.3 examined Smt. Prerna Sonographically and told her that she was ( 3 ) cria2577.11 carrying a male child. Accordingly, accused No.3 prepared a report and handed it over to Smt. Prerna and her relatives. Smt. Prerna then informed this incident on the same day to one Adv. Varsha Deshpande, who then reported the same to Civil Surgeon and Collector of Beed. The Collector and the Civil Surgeon directed the complainant to record statements of Smt. Prerna and her relatives and also inspect the center. Accordingly, on 21.09.2010 at around 4.00 p.m. the complainant and others visited the center. Here they recorded statement of the applicant and other two accused. The complainant asserted that as per his office record the center was registered in the name of applicant and it was he who was authorized to operate the USG M at the center. He asserted that during the incident described above, the applicant did not conduct USG and thereby allowed accused No.3 to conduct USG and thereby helped her in disclosing sex of foetus of Smt. Prerna. The applicant moved this application after he received summons of the Court. He asserted that though he had given consent to accused No.2 for visiting the center as consulting radiologist, he had no occasion to visit the center. He also stated that he had nothing to do with the center and had no involvement in the incident. He also said that the consent he had given to accused No.2 was withdrawn etc. |
| JMFC | R.C.C. No.302 of 2010, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parali Vaijnath, Dist. Beed committed various offences punishable under PCPNDT Act |
| Observation of HC | 1. applicant is accused No.1 in R.C.C. No.302 of 2010, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parali Vaijnath, Dist. Beed. The facts leading to this complaint are as under. Other two accused are husband and wife and are medical practitioners of Parali Vaijnath. They established genetic counseling center cum USG clinic at Parali Vaijnath. Prior to April, 2007, Accused No.2 Dr. Mundhe made an application for registration of such center under the provisions of the Act. While providing information in form “A” for registration of the center, Accused No.2 mentioned that the applicant has agreed to work as consulting radiologist in the center and mentioned his name in the application. 2. The Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Beed after following due procedure issued certificate of registration of accused No.2 on 19th April, 2007. The registration was made valid for five years from the date of registration. The complainant in his complaint narrated the incident in following manner. 3. The question is – whether the applicant by remaining absent from the center on the date of incident allowed accused No.3 to conduct USG on the decoy patient and thereby helped her in finding sex of foetus? The answer is in the NEGATIVE. 4. In order to appreciate the submissions made, one must note the provisions of the Act and Rules. 5. Since the applicant admitted that he had given his consent to accused No.2 to help him running this center, he is trying to suggest that he has withdrawn his consent subsequently in 2010 but that is of no avail. At least this could be his defence if he remains an accused at the time of trial. On the date of incident, thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the applicant was employee of the center. As an employee of the center, what was responsibility and liability of the applicant is a question. The answer is provided in rule 18 of the rules. Rule 18 reads as under: “ I am not sure whether the complainant has purposely made false statement in the complaint that the center is registered in the name of the applicant, but the complainant can be accused of making such false statement to ensure that the case against the applicant is made plausible. In absence of this statement, probably the learned Magistrate would not have issued process against the applicant. However, I am not deciding the question as to whether the complainant made a false statement on purpose in the complaint. All that I am trying to suggest is that the complainant did not apply his mind to the facts of the case before drafting the complaint. He rather hurriedly or over jealously made the applicant as accused in this case. I am aware that the Act and the Rules are made to provide prohibition of sex selection before and after conception and for regulating prenatal diagnostic technique. I am also aware that because of such techniques, female foetus are being aborted and this has led to imbalance of sex ratio. I am also aware that provisions of this Act and Rules should be utilized to bring erring practitioners to book. I am also aware that the Government has taken lot of initiative in this area for not only implementing provisions of this Act and Rules but also to file cases against the violators of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. This initiative is certainly welcome and would certainly help the society to bring back the sex ratio to normalcy. But at the same time, since the provisions of this Act are quite strict to accused, utmost care is required to be taken while filing cases against the medical practitioners. The applicant in this case has suffered unnecessarily due to filing of this case in September, 2010. The case against the applicant deserves to be quashed. |
| Reason | The facts mentioned above admit that on the date of incident the applicant was not seen in the center, he did not conduct any test on the decoy patient nor he issued any opinion. When the decoy patient visited the center, other accused admittedly did not give any call to the applicant to attend and conduct radiological examination of the patient. It is not case of the prosecution that even after giving such calls, the applicant purposefully did not attend the case and thereby allowed accused No.3 to conduct USG of the patient. It is clear from the narration of the complaint that Smt. Prerna, the decoy patient and her relative approached accused No.2 first and then he allowed accused No.3 to examine the decoy patient radiologically/Sonographically. As said above, accused No.2 is owner of the center and no one can enter the center without his consent. I did not find any provision in the Act and Rules that the consulting radiologist is under obligation to attend each case of USG of pregnant woman. So, the applicant was not able to ensure that in his absence such tests for determination of sex of foetus are not conducted. This factual position ought to have appreciated by the complainant, who is also a senior Government Officer and a medical practitioner himself. Only because the name of the applicant was given as consulting radiologist of thecenter at the time of registration, the complainant thought it fit to file this complaint against the applicant. On the face of it, the applicant has not committed any offence whatsoever punishable under any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. |
| judgment | The criminal application is allowed. Criminal Case bearing R.C.C. No. 302 of 2010 stands quashed as against applicant alone. |
| S.NO. | 11 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | Bombay HC AT AURANGABAD BENCH on 21 August, 2012 Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala WRIT PETITION NO. 6161 OF 2012 |
| Parties & judgment | Dr. Prakash S/O Shamrao Chaudhari vs The State Of Maharashtra. |
| Action by AA | Respondent authorities on 18.06.2011 visited the said centre of the petitioner and found certain discrepancies. On the very same day, the respondent authorities cancelled the registration of the USG M of the petitioner. After cancelling the same, the respondent authorities have asked for the reply from the petitioner within seven days. |
| JMFC | Not Applicable |
| Observation of HC | Petitioner is a medical practitioner. The clinic of the petitioner possesses the certificate of registration. Petitioner registration has been cancelled without hearing the petitioner and without following the procedure as is prescribed under Sub Ss. 1 and 2 of Sec. 20 . an appeal is provided U/Sec. 21 of the Act of 2003 and as the alternate remedy is available, the present writ petition may not be entertained. If a statute prescribes a particular thing to be done in particular manner, it is to be done in that manner only. The action is purported to have been taken under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act of 2003. The authorities are duty bound to follow the said provisions while contemplating action. The action of cancellation of registration of the USG M is punitive in nature. When such a harsh action is undertaken, the procedure laid down therein has to be scrupulously followed. Perusal of the Sec. 20 of Act of 2003, it is manifest that the authority can even suo motu take action if some irregularity or illegality is found at the centre. The first step to be undertaken is issuance of show cause notice seeking explanation from the delinquent as to why his registration should not be cancelled or suspended. Sub Ss. 2 of Sec. 20 requires an opportunity of hearing to be given to the said party. An exception is carved out by way of Sub Ss. 3, wherein if in the opinion of the AA , it is necessary and expedient in public interest, then for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the registration of Genetic Counselling Centre. If an action under Sub Ss. 3 of Ss. 20 of the Act of 2003 is undertaken the procedure of issuance of show cause notice and opportunity of hearing is exempted. However, said Ss. 20(3) of the Act of 2003 is to be invoked in exceptional circumstances i. e. if the AA is convinced that, it is in public interest to suspend the registration. Moreover, sub Ss. 3 of Sec. 20 of the Act of 2003 authorizes the authority only to suspend the registration, but does not authorize the authorities to cancel the registration. The procedure adopted in cancelling the registration of the petitioner’s centre is not warranted under any of the provisions of the statute, nor it satisfies the test of reasonableness and the principles of natural justice. In normal course, this Court would not have entertained the petition on the count of alternate remedy. However, as action in the present case is such which is not inconsonance with any of the provisions of the statute. |
| Reason | the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Dr. Dashrath Shamrao Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 (4) All MR 156 to buttress his submissions that, if the notice U/Sec. 20(1) was not issued and an opportunity of hearing as required U/Sec. 20(2) of the Act of 2003 is not afforded, the order is unsustainable. In the present case, the registration of the USG M of the petitioner has been cancelled without issuing show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing. Such a step is not contemplated under any of the provisions of the statute. The authorities are empowered to cancel the registration only after issuance of show cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. One of the important component of rule of natural justice is issuance of notice to the person against whom a penal or punitive action is sought to be taken. Therefore, the statute also contemplates opportunity of hearing. In the case in hand, the authorities have visited the centre of the petitioner on 18.06.2011 and on that day itself, has cancelled the registration. Upon cancelling the registration, it is said that show cause notice is been issued and explanation is called within seven days. It cannot be comprehended that after the registration is cancelled, explanation is called from the petitioner. Principles of natural justice nowhere contemplate such a procedure. In fact, by adopting such a procedure principles of natural justice are rendered illusory. In fact, it ought to be other way round. After the show cause notice is issued and the explanation is received from the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the authorities are not satisfied with the explanation, the authorities can take further step. But in the present matter first the registration is cancelled and then the show cause notice is issued. It would be putting the cart before the horse. |
| judgment | As the action taken by the authorities is against the statute, the same cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. |
| S.NO. | 12 |
| H. C. judge name case no. date of decision | HC GUJARAT, AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15096 of 2011 18 February, 2013 MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED |
| Parties & judgment | Prakash Patel vs State of Gujarat |
| Action by AA | Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.9 of 2011 filed by the petitioner vide communication dated 12.8.2011. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the registration of the clinic of the petitioner has been cancelled permanently. Where respondents are AA |
| JMFC | Not applicable |
| Observations of HC | petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.9 of 2011 filed by the petitioner vide communication dated 12.8.2011. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 23.5.2011 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the registration of the clinic of the petitioner has been cancelled permanently. The petitioner has challenged both the above orders on the ground that the same are absolutely, unjust, improper, incorrect, malafide, prejudicial and not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Ss. ) Rules, 1996. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is possessing the qualification of MD/DGO and is practicing in the field of gynaecology and obstetrics since 1982. The hospital of the petitioner is duly registered under the PNDT Act and was given registration certificate bearing Registration No.GJ-13-0078-AAA-2007. On 02.04.2011 the petitioner addressed a complaint to DCB, Surat alleging that several persons in the name of NGO are involved in blackmailing the doctors. On 16.04.2011, the officer of the respondent No.2 visited the premises of the petitioner but could not find any material object/record with regard to sex determination of the foetus. However, the said authority seized office copies of Form-F for the period from 15.07.2009 to 03.02.2010 only with a view to find fault with the petitioner. On 18.4.2011, show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner which was duly replied on 29.4.2011. On 23.5.2011, the respondent No.2 authority in defiance of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the mandatory provisions of PC & PNDT Act especially Ss. 20(2) cancelled the registration of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the said decision the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.1 AA . Against the said decision dated 23.5.2011 the petitioner preferred an Appeal before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 12.8.2011. Being aggrieved with the said the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Deficiency or inaccuracy in filling FF prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules made under the PNDT Act, being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping record in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Ss. 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and has to be treated and tried accordingly. It does not, however, mean that each inaccuracy or deficiency in maintaining the requisite record may be as serious as violation of the provisions of Ss. 5 or 6 of the Act and the Court would be justified, while imposing punishment upon conviction, in taking a lenient view in cases of only technical, formal or insignificant lapses in filling up the forms. For example, not maintaining the record of conducting ultra USG on a pregnant woman at all or filling up incorrect particulars may be taken in all seriousness as if the provisions of Ss. 5 or 6 were violated, but incomplete details of the full name and address of the pregnant woman may be treated leniently if her identity and address were otherwise mentioned in a manner sufficient to identify and trace her. |
| Reasons | From the above it becomes clear that deficiency or inaccuracy in filling Form-F prescribed under Rule-9 of the Rules made under the PNDT Act being a deficiency or inaccuracy in keeping the records in the prescribed manner, it is not a procedural lapse but an independent offence amounting to contravention of the provisions of Ss. 5 or 6 of the PNDT Act and it has to be treated and tried accordingly. In view of foregoing discussion and observations this Court does not find any illegality committed by the respondent authorities and therefore, the impugned orders deserve no interference in this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. |
| Judgment | The impugned orders deserve no interference in this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. therefore, the impugned orders deserve no interference in this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. |
