# Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors v. State Appropriate Authority. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1464
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 3795 of 2025
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alpha-diagnostic-centre-ors-v-state-appropriate-authority-ors-53495
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994,
Sections 17, 20, 22, 23, 30 - Pre-conception and
Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 12 - Search,
Seizure,
Suspension,
and
Cancellation
of
Registration - Petitioners challenged the orders
dated
26.03.2025
(Appellate
Authority),
13.10.2023 (cancellation of registration), and
12.05.2023 (suspension of registration) of their
ultrasound centre, alleging non-compliance with
the PCPNDT Act. The inspection on 01.05.2023,
authorized by the SDM, led to seizure and
sealing
without
the
District
Magistrate's
recorded satisfaction or proper delegation,
violating Section 30. No show cause notice was
issued before cancellation, and the Advisory
Committee's report lacked a recommendation
for
suspension/cancellation,
contravening
Sections 17(4) and 20(2). The seizure memo
was allegedly fabricated and antedated, with no
independent witnesses, violating Rule 12 and
Section 100 Cr.P.C. Respondents defended the
SDM's authority to delegate and the public
interest basis for suspension under Section
20(3). The court held that the search lacked a
recorded "reason to believe" by the Appropriate
Authority, rendering it illegal, per Ravinder
Kumar vs. St. of Haryana. The suspension order
lacked evidence of public interest, and the
cancellation order was void for absence of a
show cause notice and Advisory Committee
recommendation. No material showed violations
under Sections 22 or 23. All impugned orders
were quashed, and the writ petition was
allowed. (Paras 12-15)

Writ petition allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
60. Therefore, reasons assigned in
Azahar Ali (supra) are applicable in present
case since a course of one year was
conducted within less than 6 months,
therefore, petitioner is not qualified.

61. In view of above, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere with
impugned order, therefore, petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.

Conclusion

62.
All
writ
petitions
are
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1464
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 3795 of 2025

Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Appropriate Authority. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anurag
Narain
Srivastava,
Shailendra
Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994,
Sections 17, 20, 22, 23, 30 - Pre-conception and
Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 12 - Search,
Seizure,
Suspension,
and
Cancellation
of
Registration - Petitioners challenged the orders
dated
26.03.2025
(Appellate
Authority),
13.10.2023 (cancellation of registration), and
12.05.2023 (suspension of registration) of their
ultrasound centre, alleging non-compliance with
the PCPNDT Act. The inspection on 01.05.2023,
authorized by the SDM, led to seizure and
sealing
without
the
District
Magistrate's
recorded satisfaction or proper delegation,
violating Section 30. No show cause notice was
issued before cancellation, and the Advisory
Committee's report lacked a recommendation
for
suspension/cancellation,
contravening
Sections 17(4) and 20(2). The seizure memo
was allegedly fabricated and antedated, with no
independent witnesses, violating Rule 12 and
Section 100 Cr.P.C. Respondents defended the
SDM's authority to delegate and the public
interest basis for suspension under Section
20(3). The court held that the search lacked a
recorded "reason to believe" by the Appropriate
Authority, rendering it illegal, per Ravinder
Kumar vs. St. of Haryana. The suspension order
lacked evidence of public interest, and the
cancellation order was void for absence of a
show cause notice and Advisory Committee
recommendation. No material showed violations
under Sections 22 or 23. All impugned orders
were quashed, and the writ petition was
allowed. (Paras 12-15)

Writ petition allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Brij Pal Singh vs. St. of U.P. & anr.,
2024:AHC:159207

2. Ravinder Kumar vs. St. of Haryana, (2024) 9
SCR 397

3. District Appropriate Authority under the
PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer
vs. Jashmina Dilip Devda & anr., (2024) 3
SCR 60

4. Dr. Anil Bansal vs. The District Appropriate
Authority, Gurugram, 2020:PHHC:026446

5. Rajesh and Others vs. The St. of Madhya
Pradesh, MANU/SC/1040/2023

6. Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological
Societies of India (FOGSI) vs. U.O.I.and Others,
(2019) 6 SCC 283
5 All. Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors. Vs. State Appropriate Authority & Ors.
1465
7. Aslam Mohammad Merchant vs. Competent
Authority, (2008) 14 SCC 186

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned Counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel.

2. Present petition has been filed
challenging an order dated 26.03.2025
passed by the State Appellate Authority as
well as the order dated 13.10.2023
whereby, the registration of the petitioner's
Ultrasound Centre was cancelled and the
suspension order dated 12.05.2023.

3. The facts in brief are that the
petitioner no.1 is a diagnostic centre
running in the name of "Alpha Diagnostic
Centre",
which
was
registered
on
08.09.2021 and was running in terms of the
provisions contained in Pre-conception and
Pre-natal
Diagnostic
Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as "the PCPNDT
Act"). On the basis of an authorization letter
dated 01.05.2023 issued by the SDM,
Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, an inspection was
carried out on 01.05.2023 and an order of
seizure and sealing the ultrasound centre was
passed on 01.05.2023 itself, which is contrary
to the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. It is
pleaded that in terms of the provisions of the
PCPNDT Act satisfaction of the District
Magistrate is required and no such satisfaction
was recorded or any authority letter was issued
to the respondent no.3 authorizing him to
search and seized or seal the premises. It is
stated that the District Magistrate was himself
not present and thus the mandate of Section 30
of the PCPNDT Act was not observed.

4. It is argued by the Counsel for
the petitioners that although in the search
report, it is mentioned that information was
given to the District Magistrate and he has
delegated
his
power
to
the
Nayab
Tehsildar, however, no order was passed or
shown in pursuance to the search. An order
of cancellation came to be passed,
however, no notice as prescribed under
Section 20(2) was on record or served nor
was there any recommendation of the
Advisory Committee ever placed before the
District Magistrate. It is further argued that
no
seizure
memo
was
prepared
on
01.05.2023 and the same was subsequently
prepared on 24.05.2023 by making forged
and fabricated signatures of the persons
mentioned therein. The signatures are
different and which makes it clear that the
same was antedated. Even the signature of
the Manager of the Centre was fabricated,
by way of a comparison, both the
signatures have been placed on a common
sheet. It is further argued that the
provisions of Section 30 and Rule 12 of the
Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
Rules 1996 (in short "the PCPNDT Rules"
as well as the provisions of Section 100 of
Cr.P.C. were not followed and there were
no independent witness. It is stated that
after passing of the order dated 12.05.2023
and 13.10.2023, the petitioner preferred
anAppeal No.109 of 2023 under Rule 19 of
the PCPNDT Rules read with Section 21 of
the PCPNDT Act on 07.11.2023.

5. It is further argued by the
Counsel for the petitioners that during the
pendency of the appeal, for the first time
the seizure memo was provided to the
petitioners on 16.10.2023 on his moving an
application. It is further stated that the
appellate
authority
had
directed
the
respondent to produce the original records
along with the report of the Advisory
Committee and ultimately on 12.03.2025,
1466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the report of the Advisory Committee dated
10.05.2023 was produced and served upon
the petitioners and in respect of Point No.8
of
the
said
report,
there
was
no
recommendation
of
the
Advisory
Committee for suspension/ cancellation of
the registration of the petitioner no.1,
which is mandatory in terms of Sections
17(4)(d), 17 (4)(i) and Section 20(2) of the
PCPNDT Act. It is further argued that the
appellate authority without considering
these important aspects passed the appellate
order dated 26.03.2025 whereby, orders
were passed confirming the order of
cancellation and remanded the matter for
providing an opportunity of hearing as
prescribed under Section 20(1) and Section
20(2) of the Act.

6. The Counsel for the petitioners
relies upon the judgment passed by the
appellate authority in respect of similarly
placed centres wherein, it has upheld the
contention of non adherence of the Rules
and the Act, whereas a different view was
taken in the case of the petitioners. In the
light of the said, it is argued that all the
orders deserve to be quashed and the writ
petition is liable to be allowed.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has
filed a counter affidavit denying the
allegations as contained in the writ petition. It
is argued that the Nayab Tehsildar was
authorized for the search by the Sub-District
Magistrate vide order dated 01.05.2025, who
himself is delegatee the District Magistrate in
terms of the Notification dated 30.11.2007
(Annexure-CA-2). It is argued that further
through a Notification dated 08.02.2013, the
SDM has been appointed as Tehsil Level
appropriate authority for the Tehsil under his
jurisdiction (Annexure-CA-3) with further
power to sub-delegate. It is argued that in
terms of the powers conferred upon the
SDM, he was authorized to nominate the
Nayab Tehsildar for carrying out the search.
It is further stated that both the seizure memo
were made available to the petitioner on the
spot on the same day, which is indicated in
the letter itself, which records 'received'. It is
however admitted that the cancellation order
was passed without issuance of a show cause
notice. It is however stated that the petitioner
himself has admitted that on the date in
question, the authorized doctor, the petitioner
no.4 was out of Lucknow. Reliance is also
placed upon the Call Details Record of the
authorized doctor to demonstrate that he was
out of Lucknow. In the light of the said, it is
argued that the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed, moreso, when it is against an order
of remand.

8. The Counsel for the petitioners
places reliance in the case of Dr. Brij Pal
Singh vs State of U.P. and another: Neutral
Citation No. - 2024:AHC:159207. He further
places reliance in the case of Ravinder
Kumar vs State of Haryana: (2024) 9 SCR
397; District Appropriate Authority under
the PNDT Act and Chief District Health
Officer vs Jashmina Dilip Devda and
another: (2024) 3 SCR 60; Dr. Anil Bansal
vs The District Appropriate Authority,
Gurugram:
Neutral
Citation
No.2020:PHHC:026446; Rajesh and others
vs
The
State
of
Madhya
Pradesh:
MANU/SC/1040/2023.

9. The learned Standing Counsel,
on the other hand, places reliance on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Federation of
Obstetrics and Gynaecological Societies of
India (FOGSI) vs Union of India and
others: (2019) 6 SCC 283.

10. In the light of the abovesaid
contentions, it is essential to notice the
5 All. Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors. Vs. State Appropriate Authority & Ors.
1467
scheme of the PCPNDT Act, which was
enacted to provide for the prohibition of
sex selection, before or after conception
and for regulating the techniques. Section 3
of Chapter II prohibits any genetic
counselling centres, genetic laboratories
and genetic clinics to conduct any activities
to pre-natal diagnostic techniques. Section
3-A specifically prohibits that no person
including a specialist shall conduct or cause
to be conducted sex selection of a woman
or a man. Section 3-B prohibits the sale of
ultrasound machine to a person not
registered under the Act. Chapter III
provides
for
regulation
of
pre-natal
diagnostic techniques. Chapter IV provides
for constitution of a Central Supervisory
Board and Section 16-A provides for
constitution of State Supervisory Board and
Union
Territory
Supervisory
Board.
Section 17 provides for appointment of
Appropriate Authority for whole or any
part of the State to be constituting of the
members as specified under Section 17(3).
The functions of Appropriate Authority has
been specified under Section 17(4). Section
17-A
provides
the
powers
of
the
Appropriate Authorities to be exercised.
Section
20
confers
the
power
of
cancellation or suspension of registration.
Sections 20, 22 and 23 are quoted below:

 "20. Cancellation or suspension
of
registration.-(1)
The
Appropriate
Authority may suo motu, or on complaint,
issue a notice to the Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic to show cause why its registration
should not be suspended or cancelled for
the reasons mentioned in the notice.

 (2) If, after giving a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the Genetic
Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or
Genetic Clinic and having regard to the
advise of the Advisory Committee, the
Appropriate Authority is satisfied that there
has been a breach of the provisions of this
Act or the rules, it may, without prejudice
to any criminal action that it may take
against such Centre, Laboratory or Clinic,
suspend its registration for such period as
it may think fit or cancel its registration, as
the case may be.

 (3)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), if the
Appropriate Authority is of the opinion that
it is necessary or expedient so to do in the
public interest, it may, for reasons to be
recorded
in
writing,
suspend
the
registration of any Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic
Clinic without issuing any such notice
referred to in sub-section (1).

 22. Prohibition of advertisement
relating to pre-conception and pre-natal
determination of sex and punishment for
contravention.-(1)
No
person,
organisation, Genetic Counselling Centre,
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic
including clinic, laboratory or centre
having ultrasound machine or imaging
machine
or
scanner
or
any
other
technology
capable
of
undertaking
determination of sex of the foetus or sex
selection shall issue, publish, distribute,
communicate or cause to be issued,
published, distributed or communicated
any advertisement, in any form, including
Internet, regarding facilities of pre-natal
determination of sex or sex selection before
conception available at such Centre,
Laboratory, Clinic or at any other place.

 (2) No person or organisation
including Genetic Counselling Centre,
Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic shall
issue, publish, distribute, communicate or
1468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cause to be issued, published, distributed
or communicated any advertisement in any
manner regarding pre-natal determination
or pre-conception selection of sex by any
means whatsoever, scientific or otherwise.

 (3) Any person who contravenes
the provisions of sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years and with fine which may
extend to ten thousand rupees.

 Explanation.-For the purposes
of this section, "advertisement" includes
any notice, circular, label, wrapper or any
other document including advertisement
through Internet or any other media in
electronic or print form and also includes
any visible representation made by means
of any hoarding, wall-painting, signal,
light, sound, smoke or gas.

 23. Offences and penalties.-(1)
Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist,
registered medical practitioner or any
person who owns a Genetic Counselling
Centre, a Genetic Laboratory or a Genetic
Clinic or is employed in such a Centre,
Laboratory or Clinic and renders his
professional or technical services to or at
such a Centre, Laboratory or Clinic,
whether on an honorary basis or otherwise,
and who contravenes any of the provisions
of this Act or rules made thereunder shall
be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and with
fine which may extend to ten thousand
rupees and on any subsequent conviction,
with imprisonment which may extend to
five years and with fine which may extend
to fifty thousand rupees.

 (2) The name of the registered
medical practitioner shall be reported by
the Appropriate Authority to the State
Medical Council concerned for taking
necessary action including suspension of
the registration if the charges are framed
by the court and till the case is disposed of
and on conviction for removal of his name
from the register of the Council for a
period of five years for the first offence and
permanently for the subsequent offence.

 (3) Any person who seeks the aid
of any Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic
Laboratory, Genetic Clinic or ultrasound
clinic or imaging clinic or of a medical
geneticist, gynaecologist, sonologist or
imaging specialist or registered medical
practitioner or any other person for sex
selection or for conducting pre-natal
diagnostic techniques on any pregnant
women for the purposes other than those
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 4, he
shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which may extend to three years and
with fine which may extend to fifty
thousand rupees for the first offence and
for
any
subsequent
offence
with
imprisonment which may extend to five
years and with fine which may extend to
one lakh rupees.

 (4) For the removal of doubts, it
is hereby provided that the provisions of
sub-section (3) shall not apply to the
woman who was compelled to undergo
such
diagnostic
techniques
or
such
selection."

11.
Section
29
provides
for
maintenance of records. Section 30 confers
the power to search and seize the records,
which reads as under:

 "30. Power to search and seize
records, etc.- (1) If the Appropriate
Authority has 'reason to believe' that an
5 All. Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors. Vs. State Appropriate Authority & Ors.
1469
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 authorised 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 furnish evidence of the
commission of an offence 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."

12. In the light of the said statutory
provisions as quoted above and on perusal
of the order of seizure as passed on
01.05.2025 and as contained in Annexure6, it transpires that the team visited the
centre on 01.05.2023, where Sri Ajay
Singh, Coordinator was present and on
perusal of the Form-F, the same was found
unfilled at various places. It is also
recorded that the signature of the doctor on
the Form-F were different from the reports.
The requisite number of fetus of the
pregnant woman were not recorded. There
phone numbers were not recorded and on
questioning the Manager Jaya Singh could
not provide a satisfactory explanation. It
further records that a telephone call was
made to the doctor, who informed that his
father was unwell and as such, he was not
performing any ultrasound for last fifteen
days,
whereas
in
the
reports
dated
28.04.2023, 29.04.2023, 30.04.2023 and
01.05.2023, the name of the doctor was
mentioned in Form-F. It further records that
these facts were made aware to the
authorized authority/ District Magistrate
and on receiving instructions, the machines
and the Form-F in respect of the certain
patients were sealed and the seized
machines
were
handed over
in
the
Supurdagi of the Manager after sealing the
same. It was further recorded that the said
act of the licensee were contrary to the
provisions of the Act and thus in the public
interest, the license was suspended under
Section 20(3) of the PCPNDT Act. In this
regard, it is essential to notice the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ravinder Kumar (Supra), wherein the
phrase "reason to believe" used in Section
30 was interpreted to mean that there has to
be reason to believe in the context in which
it is used, which would be propelled to take
action considering the object of the Act.
The relevant paragraphs no.10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 16 and 17 are reproduced below:

 "10. The condition precedent for
the search of a clinic is that the
Appropriate Authority must have reason to
believe that an offence under the 1994 Act
has been or is being committed. The
Appropriate Authority, as defined under
Section 2(a), is the Appropriate Authority
appointed under Section 17. Subsections
(1) to (3) of Section 17 read thus:

 "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.
1470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 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
prenatal sex determination leading to
female foeticide.

 3. The officers appointed as
Appropriate Authorities under sub-section
(1) or subsection (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 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 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.

 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .."

 11. Now, coming back to Section
30, it is a very drastic provision which grants
power to the Appropriate Authority or any
officer authorized by it to enter a Genetic
Laboratory, a Genetic Clinic, or any other
place to examine the record found therein, to
seize the same and even seal the same. The
first part of sub-section (1) of Section 30
safeguards these centres or laboratories from
arbitrary search and seizure action. The
safeguard is that search and seizure can be
authorized only if the Appropriate Authority
has a reason to believe that an offence under
the 1994 Act has been committed or is being
committed.

 12. The question is what meaning
can be assigned to the expression "has
reason to believe". Section 26 of the Penal
Code, 1860 defines the expression "reason to
believe", which reads thus:

 "26. "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."

 In the case of Aslam Mohammad
Merchant v. Competent Authority:(2008) 14
SCC 186, this Court had an occasion to
interpret the same expression. In paragraph
41, this Court held thus:

 "41. 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."
5 All. Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors. Vs. State Appropriate Authority & Ors.
1471
 However, interpretation of the
expression will depend on the context in
which it is used in a particular legislation.
In some statutes like the present one, there
is a power to initiate action under the
statute if the authority has reason to believe
that certain facts exist. The test is whether
a reasonable man, under the circumstances
placed before him, would be propelled to
take action under the statute. Considering
the object of the 1994 Act, the expression
"reason to believe" cannot be construed in
a manner which would create a procedural
roadblock. The reason is that once there is
any material placed before the Appropriate
Authority based on which action of search
is required to be undertaken, if the action is
delayed, the very object of passing orders
of search would be frustrated. Therefore,
what is needed is that the complaint or
other material received by the appropriate
authority or its members should be
immediately made available to all its
members. After examining the same, the
Appropriate authority must expeditiously
decide whether there is a reason to believe
that an offence under the 1994 Act has
been
or
is
being
committed.
The
Appropriate Authority is not required to
record reasons for concluding that it has
reason to believe that an offence under the
1994 Act has been or is being committed.
But, there has to be a rational basis to form
that belief. However, the decision to take
action under sub-section (1) of Section 30
must be of the Appropriate Authority and
not of its individual members.

13. Under the notification dated
7th November 2013, the Appropriate
Authority for the district consists of the
Civil Surgeon, the District Program Officer
of the Women and Child Development
Department, and the District Attorney. The
Civil Surgeon is the Chairman of the
appropriate authority. Looking at the
object of sub-section (1) of Section 30 and
the express language used therein, only the
Chairman or any other member acting
alone cannot authorise search under
subsection (1) of Section 30. It must be a
decision of the Appropriate Authority. If a
single member of the Appropriate Authority
authorises a search, it will be completely
illegal being contrary to sub-section (1) of
Section 30. If the law requires a particular
thing to be done in a particular manner, the
same shall be done in that manner only. In
the present case, going by the affidavit filed
by Dr. Virender Yadav, the Chairman of
the District Appropriate Authority cumCivil Surgeon, Gurugram, the decision to
conduct a search by appointing three
officers by order dated 27th April 2017 was
only his decision purportedly taken in his
capacity
as
the
Chairman
of
the
Appropriate Authority. Admittedly, the
other two members of the appropriate
authority are not parties to the said
decision. The Civil Surgeon has given the
excuse
of
urgency.
The
Appropriate
authority doesn't need to have a physical
meeting. The Civil Surgeon could have held
a video meeting with the other two
members. However, when a video meeting
is held, every member must be made aware
of the complaint or the material on which a
decision will be made. It was a matter of a
few minutes.

14. Therefore, in the facts of the
case, no legal decision was made by the
Appropriate Authority in terms of subsection (1) of Section 30 to search for the
appellant's clinic. As stated earlier, subsection (1) of Section 30 provides a
safeguard by laying down that only if the
Appropriate Authority has reason to
believe that an offence under the 1994 Act
has been committed or is being committed
1472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that a search can be authorized. In this
case,
there
is
no
decision
of
the
Appropriate Authority, and the decision to
carry out the search is an individual
decision of the Civil Surgeon, who was the
Chairman of the concerned Appropriate
Authority. Therefore, the action of search is
itself vitiated.

15. There is another factual aspect
of the case. The seizure Memo dated 27th
April 2017 (Annexure P-4) contains the
names of three persons. The Seizure Memo
records that on 27th April 2017, the
District Appropriate Authority constituted
a team comprising three members whose
names were stated in the seizure memo.
However, a letter dated 27th April 2017
(annexure P-3) addressed by Deputy Civil
Surgeon Rewari to Deputy Civil Surgeon
Gurugram records that the team comprised
four members, and the raid was conducted
by the said four members.

16. A perusal of the impugned FIR
and impugned complaint shows that its
foundation is the material seized during the
raid on 27th April 2017. Except for what
was found in the search and the seized
documents, there is nothing to connect the
accused with the offence punishable under
Section 23 of the 1994 Act. As the search
itself
is
entirely
illegal,
continuing
prosecution based on such an illegal
search will amount to abuse of the process
of law. The High Court ought to have
noticed the illegality we have pointed out.

17.
Therefore,
the
appeal
is
allowed, and the impugned judgment dated
13th January 2023 is set aside. FIR No.
408, dated 27th April 2017, registered in
the Police Station, Gurugram at Gurugram,
is hereby quashed. The complaint bearing
no. COMA No. 40 of 2018, pending before
the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Gurugram,
also
stands
quashed."

 13. In the present case, there is no
material whatsoever placed before this
Court regarding any "regions to believe"
recorded by the Appropriate Authority, to
form a belief that there was any violation of
the Act; considering the 'object of the Act',
warranting action under Section 30, thus,
following the said judgment and there
being no material present, the search and
seizure itself was contrary to the mandate
of the Act. Coming to the next question
with regard to the exercise of power under
Section
20(3),
which
authorizes
the
authority
concerned
to
suspend
the
registration, if any opinion is found that the
same is necessary and expedient to do so in
the 'public interest'. In the present case,
there is no material whatsoever from the
suspension order, to demonstrate that the
alleged infractions as noticed in the
suspension order, were contrary to the
public interest, the infractions noticed were
with regard to non-fulfilling of the forms.
There is no material whatsoever to form a
view that the petitioners were engaged in
doing any act which are prohibited under
Chapter II punishable under Sections 22 or
23 of the PCPNDT Act.

14. In absence of any material to
form a view that the action of suspension
was necessary in the public interest, even
the suspension on that count cannot be
justified. Admittedly even as per the
appellate order, no show cause notice was
issued prior to cancellation, based upon
which,
the
appellate
authority
has
remanded the matter; there being an
admission to the effect that no show cause
notice was issued, the order of cancellation
in the absence of any material justifying
5 All. Rajjan Vs. State Information Commission U.P. Lko. & Anr.
1473
invoking of Section 20(3) also
cannot be justified which in any case
cannot even be invoked for cancellation
and is confined only to suspension. Thus on
overall conspectus of the material, it is
clear that there is no material whatsoever
existed to form a view that the petitioners
were indulging in any acts, which are
prohibited under Chapter II or can be
termed as offences under Sections 22 and
23, thus on that count, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed

15. The order of suspension dated
12.05.2023
and
the
cancellation
of
registration dated 13.10.2023 falling short
of the requirement under the PCPNDT Act
cannot be sustained and are quashed. The
appellate order dated 26.03.2025 is also
quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1473
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Writ C No. 4465 of 2025

Rajjan ....Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission U.P. Lko &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj Sahu

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shikhar Anand,C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Right
to
Information
Act,2005-Section
19(8)-The
petitioner
filed
an
RTI
application
seeking
information from the Gram Panchayat,
Jabrauli-Despite filing the application, a
first appeal, and a second appeal, the
requested
information
was
never
provided-The
State
Information
Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.
25000/- on the Public Information Officer
and recommended departmental action
but failed to ensure that the information
was actually furnished to the petitionerThe court observed that the core objective
of the Act,2005 is to provide information
to the citizen-It held that the State
Information Commission has wide powers
under section 19(8) of the Act, including
the authority to direct the PIO to furnish
the
requested
information-The
court
criticized the Commission for passing the
order in a mechanical manner and failing
to fulfill its statutory duties-Accordingly,
the Court set aside the impugned order
and remanded the matter back to the
Commission
with
directions
to
take
concrete steps to obtain and provide the
requested information to the petitioner.
(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. C.I.C. & anr. Vs St. of Manipur & anr. (2011)
15 SCC 1

2. Kishan Chand Jain Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 1021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Shikhar Anand, learned
counsel for State Information Commission
i.e. respondent No.1 and learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. The writ petition has come to be
filed before this Court under Article 226 of