IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1307 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.01.2011 Dr. Devender Bohra ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, for the appellant. **** ` RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) The appellant has challenged an order of suspension/cancellation of registration of Ultrasound Machine installed in the hospital run by him and the seizure/sealing of the said equipment. The registration that was earlier granted to the appellant was under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the PNDT Act'). The aforesaid cancellation/suspension of the licence was made on the ground that as required by the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the appellant did not have a qualified person to run the equipment. 2. The learned Single Judge, on an elaborate consideration of the Act and the Rules, came to the conclusion that for running a genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre, under the provisions of the Act, there should be a Gynecologist having experience of performing at least 20 procedures and a Sonologist/Imaging Specialist/Radiologist or Registered Medical Practitioner, which expressions have been defined under the Act. As the definitions LPA No. 1307 of 2010 [2] contained in the Act stipulates the necessity for registration of the concerned Doctor under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the appellant himself is a B.A.M.S.(Ayurvedic Doctor) and he had not appointed any other qualified person, there is no way in which the appellant could be allowed to operate the sonographic equipment under the Act in absence of a qualified person. The learned Single Judge also considered the purport and effect of a Notification dated 12.04.2004 issued by the State of Haryana and came to the conclusion that by the said notification what has been provided is ''certification of competence to use the modern technological innovations and cannot displace the requirement of Rule 3 of the PNDT Act”. We find no reason to disagree with the said conclusion. 3. Further more, the appellant has not challenged the vires/validity of the provisions of the Act. So long the Act lays down specific conditions with regard to persons qualified to operate the equipment and the appellant does not satisfy the said requirements imposed by the Act, we fail to see how the order of suspension/cancellation can be faulted. We accordingly affirm the view recorded by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 27.4.2010 and dismiss the appeal by refusing admission. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 17.01.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'