DISTRICT APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PNDT ACT AND CHIEF DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER versus JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA & ANR.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 60, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
* 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 sub-
sections (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 non-
obstante 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 extra-
ordinary 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 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. 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 sub-
section (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.