* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 60 : 2024 INSC 173
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act
and Chief District Health Officer
v.
Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 3831 of 2024)
04 March 2024
[J.K. Maheshwari* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The interpretation of power of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section
20(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 for cancellation,
suspension or suspension in public interest respectively by the
appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of PC & PNDT Act.
Headnotes
Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2)
& (3) – Interpretation of:
Held: Bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that s.20(1)
& (2) deals with both suspension or cancellation as the case
may be, while s.20(3) only deals with suspension in public
interest – The authority, while exercising power under subsections (1) & (2) of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act, may act suo moto
or on a complaint and after notice to the Genetic Counselling
Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for the reasons
to show cause why its registration should not be suspended or
cancelled, and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and
having regard to the advice of the Advisory Committee and on
being satisfied that there was a breach of the provisions of the
PC&PNDT Act or the Rules, without prejudice to any criminal
action, may suspend or cancel its registration as the case
maybe – Sub-Section (3) of s.20 only deals with suspension
and confers independent power to the appropriate authority
irrespective and notwithstanding the power under sub-sections
(1) or (2) of s.20 – The said power may only be exercised by
the appropriate authority if the said authority is of the opinion
that exercise of such power is necessary or expedient in public
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 61
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District
Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
interest – Meaning thereby that the exercise of such power of
suspension by appropriate authority is in a contingency where
it is expedient or necessary to take immediate action in public
interest – While exercising such power, it is incumbent on the
authority to form an opinion for reasons to be recorded in writing
to indicate the said public interest – The said power is not akin
to the power as specified in sub-section 2 of s.20 of PC&PNDT
Act and the Rules thereto. [Paras 10, 11]
Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20(1), (2)
& (3) – During inspection of the hospital run by respondent
no.1, the appropriate authority and its team found some lapses
contravening the provisions of PC&PNDT Act – On 25.10.2010,
the appropriate authority without giving any notice passed an
order suspending the registration of the hospital in exercise
of the power u/s. 20(1) & (2) of the PC & PNDT Act – Appellate
Authority directed the appropriate authority to pass a suitable
order – Pursuant thereto, appropriate authority passed fresh
order on 29.12.2010 that there was breach of mandatory
provisions and suspended the registration u/s. 20(3) of the
PC&PNDT Act in public interest – Propriety:
Held: The power of sub-section (3) of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act is
notwithstanding the power of sub-sections (1) & (2) of s.20 – The
said power can only be exercised when the appropriate authority
forms an opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest
to do so – It is incumbent upon the appropriate authority to form
its opinion based on reasons expedient or necessary to exercise
the power of suspension – The contents of the suspension order
dated 29.12.2010 does not contain reasons as required to form
an opinion that it is necessitated or expedient in public interest to
exercise the power of suspension –Therefore, it does not fulfill the
requirement of sub-section (3) of s.20 of PC&PNDT Act – Neither
the first order of suspension dated 25.10.2010 nor the second
order of suspension dated 29.12.2010 qualifies the requirement
of sub-section (3) of s.20 of the PC&PNDT Act – The said view is
fortified by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High
Court. [Para 16]
Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation & Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 – S.20 (2) &
(3) – Intendment of:
62 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: It is clarified that if the appropriate authority finds breach
of provisions of PC&PNDT Act or the Rules it may, after issuing
notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard,
without prejudice to any criminal action against the licensed
entity, suspend its registration for such period as it may think
fit or cancel the same as the case maybe – The appropriate
authority has also been conferred with a power under sub-section
(3) of s.20 notwithstanding the power under sub-section (1) &
(2) of s.20 – In the said situation in case, the authority forms
an opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest,
then after recording reasons in writing, it may suspend the
registration of the licensed entity without notice as specified in
sub-section (1) of s.20 – Thus, the power of sub-section (3) is
intermittent and in addition to the power of sub-section (2) but
it may be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances in
public interest. [Para 17]
Case Law Cited
Malpani Infertility Clinic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Appropriate
Authority, 2004 SC Online Bom 834; J. Sadanand M.
Ingle (Dr) vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC online
Bom 697; Priykant Mokalal Kapadia vs. State of Gujarat,
Special Civil Application No. 9424 of 2014; Sujit
Govind Dange vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
2012(6) Mh.L.J. 289 – referred to.
List of Acts
Preconception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation
& Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994.
List of Keywords
Cancellation or suspension of registration; Issue of notice;
Reasonable opportunity of hearing; Breach of provisions;
Recording of reasons in writing; Exercise of power in exceptional
circumstance.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3831 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2015 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA No.311 of 2014
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 63
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District
Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
Appearances for Parties
Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
Ms. Devyani Bhatt, Srikant Swaroop, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.K. Maheshwari J.
1. Leave Granted
2. In the present appeal, the issue concerns the interpretation of power
of Section 20(1) & (2) and Section 20(3) of the Pre-conception
and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation & Prevention of
Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “PC&PNDT
Act”) for cancellation, suspension or suspension in public interest
respectively by the appropriate authority specified in Section 17 of
the PC&PNDT Act.
3. The brief facts are that the respondent no.1 is running a hospital
at Ahmedabad by the name of “Dev Hospital” which is a type of
polyclinic having doctors from multiple branches like gynecology,
general physician and general surgeon treating patients in the
said hospital. The hospital was registered under the PC&PNDT
Act and the said registration was valid up to 23.05.2015. On the
basis of one complaint made by Shilpa Punani of Wadhwan District
Surendranagar, an inspection of the hospital was conducted on
21.10.2010. During inspection, the appropriate authority and its team
found some lapses contravening the provisions of PC&PNDT Act.
Consequently, the sonography machine operated in the hospital was
seized. On 25.10.2010, the appropriate authority without giving any
notice passed an order suspending the registration of the hospital
in exercise of the power under Section 20(1) & (2) of the PC&PNDT
Act. On filing appeal by respondent no.1, the appellate authority vide
order dated 21.12.2010 directed the appropriate authority to pass a
suitable order within 15 days and to clarify whether the order dated
25.10.2020, was passed in exercise of the power under Section
20(1) & (2) or under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act. The appropriate
authority taking cue from the order of the appellate authority, passed
64 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
a fresh order on 29.12.2010 that there is a breach of mandatory
provisions and accordingly suspended the registration purportedly
under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act in public interest till finalization
of the criminal proceedings.
4. An appeal preferred against the subsequent order dated 29.12.2010
by respondent no.1 was dismissed on 17.03.2011 by the appellate
authority. Being aggrieved, by the order of suspension dated
29.12.2010 and the order passed in appeal dated 17.03.2011, writ
application being SCA No. 6215/2011 was filed by respondent no.1
before the High Court of Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as “High
Court”) to set aside the said orders and to revoke the suspension
of registration of the hospital. Prayer was also made to release the
sonography machine seized by the appropriate authority.
5. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.08.2013 was pleased
to allow the writ application inter alia observing that looking to the
condition of foetus in the womb, once the patient has consented
for abortion, she cannot make a complaint for alleged violation of
provisions of PC&PNDT Act. The Court found that neither any notice
was issued nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to passing
the order suspending the registration. It was further held that while
passing the first order of suspension on 25.10.2010, powers were
exercised by appropriate authority under Sections 20(1) & (2) of
PC&PNDT Act without affording an opportunity of hearing, which was
contrary to the spirit of the said provisions and wholly unjustified.
The Learned Single Judge was of the view that appellate authority
was not justified to remit the matter in appeal against the order
of suspension to the appropriate authority suggesting clarification
whether such powers were exercised by him under Section 20(1)
& (2) or under Section 20(3) of the PC&PNDT Act and how far the
reasons for exercising such power are justified. The Court further
held that the reason as assigned in the subsequent order, if accepted
as valid, then each and every case of suspension would fall within
the purview of Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act and the provisions
of Section 20(1) & (2) will be rendered redundant.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of Learned Single Judge, appropriate
authority challenged the same by filing the Letters Patent Appeal which
was dismissed by the order impugned by the Division Bench, putting
a stamp of approval to reasonings of the Learned Single Judge. The
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 65
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District
Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
Division Bench was of the opinion that all the cases of suspension
would not automatically fall within the purview of Section 20(3) of
the PC&PNDT Act. It was observed that the reasons assigned in
subsequent order of suspension by the appropriate authority are not
valid to exercise such power in public interest. Therefore, the Letters
Patent Appeal filed by the appropriate authority was dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant authority submits that on the scope
of Sections 20(1), (2) & (3) of PC&PNDT Act, there is no judgment of
this Court, so the question involved in the case is of general public
interest. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Malpani Infertility
Clinic Pvt. Ltd. vs. Appropriate Authority, 2004 SC Online Bom 834
to urge that if power is exercised by appropriate authority to suspend
the registration due to pendency of the prosecution, such power may
be exercised in public interest under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act.
It is contended that looking to the object of PC&PNDT Act, if the
appropriate authority considers that the activity of the licensed entity
is affecting the public at large, the power to suspend the registration
or license is permissible. However, it is fairly stated that the High
Court of Bombay has given a conflicting judgment in the case of
J. Sadanand M. Ingle (Dr) vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC
online Bom 697 which lays down that sub-section (3) starts with nonobstante clause and empowers the appropriate authority to suspend
the registration temporarily. Dealing with the scope of Sections 20(3)
and 30 of the PC&PNDT Act, it was observed that, both Sections are
independent and action can be taken independent to each other. It
is also urged that issuance of the order dated 25.10.2010 referring
to the wrong provisions, would not itself render the said order illegal.
The power under Section 20(3) is of interim nature which can be
exercised in public interest in a time bound manner. Thus, by the
subsequent order dated 29.12.2010, suspension of the registration
as directed by the appellant authority was justified and prayed for
to allow this appeal and to set-aside the orders of the High Court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that
considering the tenor of the order passed by the appropriate authority
and the reasons so stated, it cannot be said to be an order suspending
the registration in public interest. Relying upon the judgment of High
Court of Gujarat passed on 16.4.2018 in Special Civil Application
No. 9424 of 2014 in the case of Priykant Mokalal Kapadia vs.
State of Gujarat, it is urged that the power of Section 20(3) of the
66 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
PC&PNDT Act is exceptional in nature and can be exercised only in
public interest after forming opinion and recording the reasons in this
regard, otherwise, such power ought not to be exercised. In support
of the said contention, reliance has also been placed on a judgment
of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sujit Govind Dange vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, 2012(6) Mh.L.J. 289 to urge
that the powers under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act are extraordinary and the appropriate authority ought to have exercised such
power in larger public interest and in exceptional circumstances, in
particular when the said authority is of the opinion that it is necessary
or expedient to do so in public interest by recording such reasons,
otherwise such power should not be exercised.
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and to
appreciate the scope of powers as specified under Section 20(1), (2)
& (3) of PC&PNDT Act, it is necessary to refer the said provisions.
For ready reference, Section 20(1), (2) & (3) of PC&PNDT Act are
being quoted hereinbelow:
20. Cancellation or suspension of registration.—
(1) The Appropriate Authority may suo moto, 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 advice 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
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 67
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District
Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such
notice referred to in sub-section (1).
10. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section
20(1) & (2) deals with both suspension or cancellation as the case
may be, while Section 20(3) only deals with suspension in public
interest. The authority, while exercising power under sub-sections
(1) & (2) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act, may act suo moto or on a
complaint and after notice to the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic
Laboratory or Genetic Clinic for the reasons to show cause why its
registration should not be suspended or cancelled, and affording
reasonable opportunity of hearing and having regard to the advice
of the Advisory Committee and on being satisfied that there was a
breach of the provisions of the PC&PNDT Act or the Rules, without
prejudice to any criminal action, may suspend or cancel its registration
as the case maybe. Meaning thereby that for breach of the provisions
of the PC&PNDT Act and the Rules, power of suspension for such
period as may deem fit or of cancellation may be exercised parallelly
by the appropriate authority.
11. Sub-Section (3) of Section 20 only deals with suspension and confers
independent power to the appropriate authority irrespective and
notwithstanding the power under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 20.
The said power may only be exercised by the appropriate authority
if the said authority is of the opinion that exercise of such power is
necessary or expedient in public interest. Meaning thereby that the
exercise of such power of suspension by appropriate authority is in
a contingency where it is expedient or necessary to take immediate
action in public interest. While exercising such power, it is incumbent
on the authority to form an opinion for reasons to be recorded in
writing to indicate the said public interest. The said power is not akin
to the power as specified in sub-section 2 of Section 20 of PC&PNDT
Act and the Rules thereto.
12. In the light of the discussion of the above provisions, it is required
to be seen whether the order of suspension passed on 25.10.2010
is really an order under sub-section (2) or under sub-section (3) of
Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act. To understand the real intent of the
order, it would be proper to reproduce the order dated 25.10.2010
as under:
68 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“No. DP/H/PNDT/Regn. Susp/Dr. Jasmina Devda/315/10
O/O Appropriate Authority, PNDT Act, 1994 & CDHO,
District Panchayat, Health Branch, Ahmedabad
Date: 25.10.2010
Read:
1. The facts of the observations by Appropriate Authority
during the visit & the search & Seizure operation at
clinic of Dr. Jasmina D. Devda, Dev Hospital, Vasna,
Ahmedabad on 21st October, 2010.
2. Advice of the PNDT Advisory Committee meeting
held on 22/10/2010.
3. Powers conferred under Section 20(1) & (2) of
PC&PNDT Act, 1994
Office Order:-
As per the points read above, a search & seizure
operation was conducted at the clinic of Dr. Jasmina
D. Devda, Dev Hospital, Kesariyaji Bus Stop, Dr.
Jivraj Mehta Hospital Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad on
21st October, 2010.
Dr. Jasmina D. Devda, Dev Hospital, Vasna, Ahmedabad
has convincingly contravened the Sections 4(3),5(2),
5(a) & Rules 9(1), 9(4), 9(8), 10(1A) and 13 of the
PC&PNDT Act, 1994. As per powers conferred under
Section No. 21(1) & 20(2) of PC&PNDT Act, 1994, the
PNDT registration No. 564 allotted to the clinic of the
same at the above address is hereby suspended till
the next order TV undersigned.
Appropriate Authority
PNDT Act, 1994 & CDHO,
District Panchayat,
Ahmedabad.
To
Dr. Jasmina D. Devda,
Dev Seva Trust, Kesariyaji Bus Stop
Dr. Jivraj Mehta Hospital Road, Vasna,
Ahmedabad.”
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 69
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District
Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
13. Having gone through the order and the provisions of sub-section
(2) of Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act, in our view, the order dated
25.10.2010 cannot be said to be an order under sub-section (3) of
Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act. In fact, it is simplicitor an order passed
under sub-section (2) of Section 20 alleging contraventions of the
provisions of PC&PNDT Act and the Rules. Therefore, we have no
hesitation to say that the appellate authority, while remanding the
matter vide order dated 21.12.2010, was not required to ask the
appropriate authority to clarify whether the order of suspension was
under sub-section (3) or under sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 20
of PC&PNDT Act.
14. After remand, the subsequent order of suspension dated 29.12.2010
passed in public interest was assailed before the appellate authority
and the writ court. To appreciate the contents of the said order and the
provisions of sub-Sections (1), (2) & (3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT
Act, it is necessary to reproduce the order dated 29.12.2010 which
is as under:
“OW No. DP/H/PNDT/Regn. Susp/Dr. Jasmina
Devda/852/100/0 Appropriate Authority, PNDT Act, 1994
& CDHO, District Panchayat, Health Branch, Ahmedabad
Date: 29.12.2010
Read:- (1) The facts of the observation by Appropriate
Authority during the visit 1 the search and seizure operation
at clinic of Dr. Jasmina D. Devda, Dev Hospital, Vasna,
Ahmedabad on 21st October, 2010.
(2) Power conferred under Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT
Act, 1994.
(3) Order dated 21/12/2010 passed in Appeal No. 5/2010
by State Appropriate Authority, PC & PNDT Act.
OFFICE ORDER
As per the points read above, a search & seizure operation
was conducted at the clinic of Dr. Jasmina D. Devda, Dev
Hospital, Kesariyaji Bus Stop, Dr. Jivraj Mehta Hospital
Road, Vasna, Ahmedabad on 21st October, 2010.
Dr. Jasmina D. Devda, Dev Hospital, Vasna, Ahmedabad
has convincingly contravened the Sections 4(3), 5(2), 6(a)
70 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
& Rules 9(1), 9(4), 9(5), 10(1A) & 13 of the PNDT Act,
1994. As per power conferred under Section No. 20(3)
of PC&PNDT Act, 1994, the PNDT Registration No. 564
allotted to the clinic of the same at the above address is
hereby suspended, for following reason till finalization of
criminal proceedings.
There is clear breach of mandatory provisions as mentioned
in the order dated 25/10/2010 viz. Section 4(3), 5(2), 6(a) &
Rules 9(1), 9(4), 9(8), 10(1A) & 13. This defeats the basic
purpose of the Act & hence contrary to the public interest.
Thus in public interest it is required to check the activity
of yours as you are not acting as per statutory provisions
of Act & hence, suspension of the PNDT registration is
desirable.
Appropriate Authority,
PNDT Act 1994 & CDHO,
District Panchayat,
Ahmedabad.”
15. Perusal of the above order reveals that the appropriate authority
while passing the order sought to exercise power under sub-section
(3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act and directed suspension of the
registration of the clinic till finalization of the criminal proceedings
because of the contraventions of the provisions of the PC&PNDT
Act and the Rules. Therefore, it is said to be contrary to the public
interest and such activity is required to be curbed.
16. As per the discussion made hereinabove, in our view, the power of
sub-section (3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act is notwithstanding
the power of sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 20. The said power
can only be exercised when the appropriate authority forms an
opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest to do so.
It is incumbent upon the appropriate authority to form its opinion
based on reasons expedient or necessary to exercise the power of
suspension. The contents of the suspension order dated 29.12.2010
does not contain reasons as required to form an opinion that it is
necessitated or expedient in public interest to exercise the power of
suspension. Therefore, in our view, it does not fulfill the requirement
of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of PC&PNDT Act. As per the above
discussions, neither the first order of suspension dated 25.10.2010
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 71
District Appropriate Authority under the PNDT Act and Chief District
Health Officer v. Jashmina Dilip Devda & Anr.
nor the second order of suspension dated 29.12.2010 qualifies the
requirement of sub-Section (3) of Section 20 of the PC&PNDT Act.
The said view is fortified by the reasoning recorded by the learned
Single Judge and Division Bench which we find just and concur
by its reasoning. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal.
17. In the above context, it is necessary to refer to the intendment of
Section 20(2) and Section 20(3) of PC&PNDT Act. At the cost of
reiteration, we clarify that if the appropriate authority finds breach
of provisions of PC&PNDT Act or the Rules it may, after issuing
notice and giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, without
prejudice to any criminal action against the licensed entity, suspend its
registration for such period as it may think fit or cancel the same as
the case maybe. The appropriate authority has also been conferred
with a power under sub-section (3) of Section 20 notwithstanding
the power under sub-section (1) & (2) of Section 20. In the said
situation in case, the authority forms an opinion that it is necessary
or expedient in public interest, then after recording reasons in writing,
it may suspend the registration of the licensed entity without notice
as specified in sub-section (1) of Section 20. Thus, the power of subsection (3) is intermittent and in addition to the power of sub-section
(2) but it may be exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances in
public interest. In our view, the power of suspension, if any exercised,
by the appropriate authority deeming it necessary or expedient in
public interest for the reasons so specified, it should be for interim
period and not for an inordinate duration.
18. As per above discussion of the legal position, in the facts of the
present case as is apparent, the inspection was made on 21.10.2010,
and the order of suspension was passed on 25.10.2010 without any
notice or affording any opportunity of hearing as per sub-section
(2) of Section 20. On filing appeal, the appellate authority remitted
it to the appropriate authority which passed the subsequent order
of suspension dated 29.12.2010 exercising the power under subsection (3) of Section 20, which in our view is not justified and has
rightly been set-aside by Learned Single Judge and confirmed by
the Division Bench. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appropriate
authority is hereby dismissed and the order passed by Learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench are hereby upheld. Since the
order under challenge has been implemented and the hospital is
72 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
operational, therefore no further consequential orders are required
to be passed directing to revive the registration. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:
Appeal dismissed.
