IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Civil Writ Petition No.18365 of 2009
Date of decision:03.02.2010
Dr. Mrs. Sudha Samir ….Petitioner versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.19740 of 2009 Dr. Mrs. Maninder Ahuja ….Petitioner versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents III. Civil Writ Petition No.19794 of 2009 Dr. R.D.Negi ….Petitioner versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for respondent No.3. —-
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? —-
Civil Writ Petition No.18365 of 2009 -2- K.Kannan, J. (Oral)
1. The batch of writ petitions challenges the impugned order of suspension of registration under the Pre-conception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter called ‘the PNDT Act’). The suspension had been done after a show cause notice was issued under Section 20, when on an inspection, the authorities had come to a provisional conclusion that the petitioners were indulging in acts that were prohibited under the Act. It appears that an appeal had been filed by all the petitioners under Section 21 of the Act and it confirmed the decision of the appropriate authority and hence, they challenge the decisions by means of the batch of writ petitions.
2. The contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the appropriate authority constituted under the Act shall be notified in the official gazette and admittedly the gazette publication was made only on 21.07.2009. At the time when the impugned show cause notices were issued and the action for suspension had been taken, the gazette notification had not been made and therefore, the entire action under Section 20 of the Act ought to fail. The response to this contention by the counsel for the respondent is that the Government had issued an ordinance to validate certain acts done by various authorities prior to the gazette notification through the Pre- conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Haryana Validation Ordinance, 2009 issued on 21st July, 2009. The ordinance purports to validate of the acts and proceedings done by appropriate authorities on the ground that the notification of the Act had Civil Writ Petition No.18365 of 2009 -3- been made on 24.10.1997 and the ordinance is intended to save certain acts taken by the appropriate authority, which under Section 17(2), he is competent to do. It is seen that the ordinance was subsequently introduced as a Bill on 30th July, 2009 in the State Assembly and also brought as an enactment subsequently. The learned counsel sought to contend that the ordinance itself has been repealed and that the 2009 ordinance will not have any effect. It must be noticed that the ordinance was repealed in order to substitute it by an enactment passed in an Assembly through a Bill. When the substituted enactment itself is not in challenge which validates the acts done by the appropriate authority even prior to the gazette publication on 21.07.2009, the petitioners’ challenge to the show cause notices and the substantial orders of the competent authority cannot survive for adjudication before this Court. The petitioners may have independent remedy to challenge the validity of the Act, itself but so long as the Act is in its place, the action initiated by the appropriate authority cannot be assailed on the ground that when it was done, the gazette notification had not been issued.
3. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. (K.KANNAN)