Telangana High Court Temporarily Suspends Notice to Diagnostic Centre Over PCPNDT Regulations
The Telangana High Court temporarily suspended a notice against M/s Srinivasa Diagnostic Centre, protecting its diagnostic services from potential disruption due to unmet PCPNDT Act compliance requirements. This ruling addresses ongoing challenges faced by centers in adhering to stringent state regulations.
Highlights
- •Telangana High Court suspends notice for renewal of M/s Srinivasa Diagnostic Centre's registration under the PCPNDT Act
- •Petition challenged notice dated May 18 issued by District Appropriate Authority, leading to a temporary suspension order
- •State mandatory training program remains unconstituted, preventing compliance and subject of legal challenge
- •Judicial intervention allows continuation in operations while ensuring future processes are feasible
Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao of the Telangana High Court recently issued a temporary suspension order against a notice issued under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PCPNDT) Act to M/s. Srinivasa Diagnostic Centre in Nirmal district, effectively preventing its registration renewal.
Legal Challenges to PCPNDT Registration Rules
The writ petition was filed by the M/s. Srinivasa Diagnostic Centre, represented by its proprietor Dr. C. Srinivas, who challenged the notice dated May 18 issued by the District Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act. The petitioner sought a renewal of its PCPNDT registration certificate and contended that the authorities were unlawfully interfering with their sonography and diagnostic services.
Lamentably, counsel for the petitioner submitted that Dr. Srinivas, a seasoned medical practitioner with over two decades of experience in radiology-related diagnostic services, was being unjustly hindered by the stringent state regulations. According to them, although the State made a mandatory training program for renewal of licenses under the PCPNDT framework, no competent authority had been established yet. Consequently, compliance with these rules was unattainable.
Significantly, even when pointed out that there were no competent authorities to conduct requisite training, the Government Pleader for Medical and Health department acknowledged this fact without contesting it before the Court. This critical admission paved the way for Justice Rao's decision.Judge's Ruling Protects Diagnostic Center's Operations
Considering the arguments presented by the petitioner, Judge Rao concluded that refusal of renewal merely due to the non-availability of a necessary authority was unjustifiable. He consequently suspended the impugned notice until further directions were given and allowed the diagnostic center to continue operating its services.
The Court also directed that once such competent authority is established in the future, it would issue an appropriate notice for renewal with due process.
Note, similar cases have emerged across various sectors questioning the feasibility of current regulatory mechanisms under the PCPNDT Act. This judicial intervention addresses a significant concern for diagnostic centers and
