R.A. No.32 of 2010 in -1- C.W.P. No.18365 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.A. No.32 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.18365 of 2009 Date of Decision.07.04.2010 Dr. Mrs. Sudha Samir ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt., Health Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 2. R.A. No.33 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.19794 of 2009 Dr. R.D. Negi ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt., Health Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents 3. R.A. No.34 of 2010 in C.W.P. No.19740 of 2009 Dr. Mrs. Maninder Ahuja ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary to Govt., Health Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Hemen Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Deepali Puri, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The applications are for review of the order, which is already passed. Initially, at the time when the admission was R.A. No.32 of 2010 in -2- C.W.P. No.18365 of 2009 sought, it was contended that the bill giving a retrospective applicability to the competent authority to accord sanction for prosecution under the Act had not been passed as an enactment but it is now conceded that the bill was passed through the Legislature and became an Act on 14.09.2009. The contention, therefore, does not survive. 2. It is also contended that the impugned order did not give show cause notice against cancellation and a further show cause notice against prosecution. The contention was that Sections 20(1)& (2) mandate the issuance of notice before taking action for suspension and that has not been considered in the order. First of all, the said argument was not advanced at the stage when this Court originally passed the order. Even such an argument is not tenable since Section 20(3) provides for a situation when for reasons to be stated, the suspension of registration could be made even without serving a show cause notice. The adequacy of such reason in the impugned order as contemplated under Section 20(3) cannot be a matter for judicial review. What can be seen in review is an error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, the judgment which was passed by the Court is to be only seen as not susceptible for a review in the manner sought by the applicants. 3. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE April 07, 2010 Pankaj*