HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. – 29
Case :- WRIT – C No. – 49695 of 2013
Petitioner :- Vikas Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon’ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29th August, 2013, passed by District Magistrate, Ghaziabad (Annexure-‘7’ to the writ petition), by which the registration of the petitioner’s Diagnostic Centre has been cancelled.
We do not propose to grant time to learned Standing Counsel, as we feel that on the facts and nature of the case and the order we propose to pass, the interest of both sides stand protected. Accordingly, we propose to dispose of the writ petition by noticing the facts in brief :
The petitioner runs an Ultrasound Centre in the name and style of M/s. GZB Focus Imaging & Diagnostic, which was registered in the name of Vikas Kumar Sharma and Praveen Kumar Sharma, as stated in para 5 of the writ petition.
Submission is that in fact there is nothing wrong against the running of the Ultrasound Centre, but certain local persons are harassing the petitioner from time to time and trying to get the registration of the petitioner’s Ultrasound Centre cancelled. Earlier show cause notices were issued on 16th July, 2013 and 23rd July, 2013, which were duly replied by the petitioner and on being satisfied with the genuineness and bona fides of the petitioner, no action was taken on said show cause notices.
It is stated that again a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and for the reasons so recorded in the impugned order, the registration of the petitioner’s centre has been cancelled. In para 15 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that show cause notice dated 7/29th August, 2013 was sent on 29th August, 2013 and the impugned order has also been passed on 29th August, 2013 and, therefore, in fact, the petitioner did not receive any notice and he was deprived of opportunity� to make reply and, thus, the impugned order has been passed illegally and in violation of principles of natural justice. A copy of the notice, referred to above, has been annexed on page 45 of the petition.
We find that in the aforesaid notice after the date 7th August, 2013, in the bottom of page 47, the date 29th August, 2013 is also mentioned.
Be that as it may, we are not going into the merits or otherwise of the case, but we are satisfied that petitioner was deprived of opportunity to file the response to the show cause notice, as is required under Section 20 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
In view of the aforesaid, we direct that petitioner shall file certified copy of this order, within one week from today, with an application requesting the competent authority to give a notice, stating the charges, which will be immediately given to the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to submit response, within a week, after getting the notice. The competent authority, who has passed the impugned order, shall thereafter,� take into consideration the petitioner’s explanation, and shall pass suitable order, preferably within 15 days of the date of receipt of the response. The order so passed shall hold the field, without prejudice to the right of the affected party to challenge the same.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.9.2013.