PCPNDT Act| Authorities Must Process Clinic Registration Renewals Within One Month; Delay Cannot Penalise Timely Applicants: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that the competent authorities under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994,must process registration renewals within one month and non-renewal of registration of any clinic cannot become an offence against those clinics if the clinics/laboratories have submitted their application within time with all necessary documents.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition seeking the quashing of proceedings pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate and the order of the concerned Court taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 23, 23(1), 23(2), 20(1), 20(2), 20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “it becomes necessary for the Competent Authorities to dispose of the application filed seeking renewal of registration within a reasonable time. Reasonable time, in the opinion of the Court, would be one month from the date of receipt of application failing which, non renewal of registration of any clinic cannot become an offence against those clinics if the clinics/laboratories have submitted their application within time with all necessary documents.”
Advocate Tejasvi KV appeared for the Appellant and Additional SPP BN Jagadessha appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
Petitioner no 2, a registered medical practitioner with Karnataka Medical Council registration, works at a clinic owned by Petitioner no 1, who obtained a registration certificate valid till 2022. After applying for renewal in 2022, no action was taken for two years. Later the District Health and Family Welfare Officer inspected the clinic, seized an ultrasound machine, and sealed it on-site. After a subsequent inspection, a case was registered under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Following the Court's cognizance, a Criminal Case was registered, and a summons was issued. Hence, the present Petition.
The Court said that the reason for the offence against the Petitioners is the callousness of the officer who has to pass the order on the application for renewal.
The Court noted that in the event the officers would not dispose of the application within one month, they shall incur the wrath of facing disciplinary proceedings for dereliction of duty, as the callousness of those officers will lead to unnecessary registration of criminal cases against the laboratories.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Petition.
Cause Title: B. Gopala Krishna v. District Conmissioner
