The High Court · 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be deased to suspend the operation of the impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Order ltlo.1 1 12lFlR.No.26612O25IPC&PNDT/DRA/DM&HONDBTZOZS dated 07.11.2o251't35, pending disposal of the writ Appeal in this Hon'bte court. counsel for the Appellant: sRt p.vENUGopAL, sENtoR couNSEL FoR SRI T.VASANTHA RAO counsel for the Respondent Nos.l To 4: sRt R.NAGARJUNA REDDY, counsel for the Respondent Nos.s & 6: Ms. GHENAGONI MouNlKA FoR Ms. SAHITHI SRt KAVYA M AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD AP AND E WRIT APPEAL No.2l4 of 2026 DATED: 30.03.2026 Between: M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy (SLNS) Diagnostic Centre, R/o. H.No.3-l-321A, AMR Nagar, opp: District Hospital, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Rep. By its Managing Director Dr. D.Pandu Goud @ Pandu, S/o. Sathaiah, aged about 36 years. AND Appellant The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical & Family Welfare (Dl), Dr. B.R.Arnbedkar Telangana Secretariat atHyderabad&5others Respondents JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. P.Venugopal, leamed Senior Counsel representing / I Mr. T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleadcr for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Departmcnt appearing for respondent Nos. t to 4 2 and Ms. Chenagoni Mounika, learned counsel representing Ms. Sahithi Sri Kavya M., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner is a Diagnostic Centre whose registration under the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Teihniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter refemed to as'the PC& PNDT Act, 1994') was cancelled in exercise of the power under Section 20 of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 by the impugned order dated 07.1 I .2025 after issuance of a notice dated 10.09.2025 under Section 20(l) of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 and upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the appellant dated 16.09.2025 The charges in the show cause notice are enumerated from Serial Nos.(i) till (xxvii), which are extracted hereunder: "i) M/:; Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy (SLNS) Diagnostic Centre, H.No: 3-l-32lA, AMR ,.lagar, Opp: District Hospital, Bhongir town, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district is not maintaining patient register as per the PC&PNDT Act-1994. ii) As per online data, 173 physical F-From are not submitted (Annexure-l enclosed) under PC&PNDT Act- I 994. iii) 44 I referral slips are not submitted (Annexure-fi enclosed). iv) Sc,rnning Centre Registration number is not entered in 82 F-Forms (Annexure-lll enclosed). v) Totll No. of living children not entered in 5 F-Forms (Annexure-lV enclosed). vi) Hrsband/wife/Father/Mother name is not interred in I F-Form (Annexure-v enclosed). vii) Frrll Postal address is not entered in 2 F-Forms (Annexure-Vl enclosed). viii) Refenal Doctor Name is not menrioned in 688 F-Forms (Annexure-vil enclosed). ix) Sr:lf referral by Radiologist /Gynaecologist is nor mentioned in 5o F-Forms (Annexure-Vlll enclosed). x) LII{P (or) Months of Pregnancy is not mentioned in 13 F-Forms (Annexure-lX enclor;ed). xi) Name of the Doctors performing the procedures is not mentioned in 35 F-Forms (Anne xure-X enclosed). xii) trdication for diagnostic is not mentioned in 526 F-Forms (Annexure-XI enclo:;ed). xiii) [)eclaration of Pregnant women/Person was not obtained and not mentioned in l8 F-Forms (A nnexure-X I I enclosed). \ \ A J xiv) Date on which declaration of pregnant woman/person was obtained not mentioned in 57 F-Forms (Annexure-XIII enclosed). xv) Results of non-invasive procedure carried out not mentioned in 7l F-Forms (Annexure-XlV enclosed). xvi) Dates of results of pre-nate diagnostic procedures were not filled for45 pregnant women of F-Forms (Annexure-XV endased). xvii) Column of Indication for MTP as per the abnormality detected in the diagnostic procedures is not mentioned for 775 Pregnant Women;'s F-Forms (Annexure-XVl enclosed). xviii) Radiologist is not signed on 944 F-Form's of Section B (Annexure-XVII enclosed) xix) Declaration of Pregnant Women not obtained for 3 Pregnant Women (Annexure- XVlll enclosed). xx) Signature/Thumb impression is not obtained for 199 Pregnant Women's (Annexure-X IX enclosed). xxi) Radiologist is not signed on 38 F-Forms of Section D (Annexure-XX enclosed)- xxii) Radiologist Signature is missed Matched in 66 F- Forms (Annexure-XXl enclosed). xxiii) 23 Physical F-Forms are submitted but not entered in PC&PNDT web portal (Annexure XXI I enclosed). xxiv) M/s Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swarny (SLNS) Diagnostic Centre, H.No: 3-l-32lA AMR Nagar, Opp: District Hospital, Bhongir town, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district is not registered under Clinical Establishment Act-20 10. xxv) F-Forms entered in online of PC&PNDT Web portal but physical forms not submitted for the months of March-2024, December-2024, lanuary-2025, February- 2025 and March-2025 to O/o DM&HO, Yadadri Bhuvanagiridistrict. xxvi) tnformation pertains to Form-F of Smt. Thimmapuram Srilatha, 24 Years/F, Wo Srinivas accused No:04 of FIR No:26612025 dated07.07.2025 is not submitted as given below: a) Name & address of the referral Doctor is not mentioned. b) Indications mentioned for diagnosis procures is not mentioned in the F-Form of self referral form of Dr.D. Pandu Goud, Radiologist. c) Procures carried out (Non-lnvasive) procedures is not mentioned in F-Form, d) Date on which declaration of pregnant women was not obtained in the F-Form. e) Date on which procedure carried out is not mentioned in the F-Form. f) Result of the Non-invasive procedure carried out (report in brief of the test is not mentioned in F-Form. g) Date of Pre-natal Diagnostic procedure was not conveyed / mentioned in F- Form. h) Column of indication for MTP as per the abnormality detected in the diagnostic procedures/test is not filled in F-Form. i) Smt. Thimmapuram Srilath, 24 YeatslF, W/o Srinivas is scanned on 30.06.2025, however, the F-Form was entered with delay in the online PC&PNDT rveb portalon 25.08.2025. xxvii) F-Form of Dharavath Sujatha, 24 YrslF, Wo Ramesh, R/o Pedda Thanda Village, Thorkapally (M) Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district and accused No: 05 of FIR No: 26612025, dated:07.07.2025 is not submitted to the Appropriate Authority under PCSPNDT Act- I 994." ,l/ 2/

3. The appellant claims to have properly answqred each of the charges but the competent authority i.e., Collector and District Magistrate, Yadadri 4 Bhuvanagiri District, in a cryptic manner without dealing with the specific repty furnished on each of these charges proceeded to cancel the registration dated

27.12.2016 in the name of Managing Director of the appellant Dr. Danroori Pandu issued by 'Ielangana State Medical Council under Sections l l and 32 of the Clinical tlstablishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to ar; 'the Act of 2010') and Rule 29 of the Telangana State Clinical Establishmerts (Registration and Regulations) Rules, 2}ll. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the writ Court in W.P.No.35986 of 2025. The learned writ Court referred to a complaint of lnspector of Bhongir dated 07.07.2025 on which notice was issued to the appellant on 08.07.2025, which it responded to on 14.07.20'.25 and based upon an inspection conducted on 20.0g.2025, the Collector artd District Magistrate, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District i.e., the Appropriate Authority lor PC&PNDT Act, 1994 issued notice under Section 20(1) of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 on 10.09.2025. Appetlanr submitted its explanatior ,ln 16.09.2025 which was placed before the District Level Advisory Committee and its explanation was found not satisfactory. Therefore, the \ \ District Lev,:l Appropriate Authority recommended to the District Collector to issue show oause notice and take appropriate action. Thereupon, the impugned order dated ')7.1 I .2025 was passed. It is submitted that the counter affidavit of, the 3'd respr3n6tsnt showed that appellant's Diagnostic Centre was registered I i i i, aI I I 5 .1 I under Telangana Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act,2002 but not under the Act of 2010 as per the Telangana State Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, zOIL The impugned order further records that appellant did not refer to the counter filed in W.P.No.31457 of 2025, nor did he mention about the cancellation order dated

07.11.2025. Therefore, the leamed writ Court refused to interfere in the impugned order dated 07.1 I .2025 and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

4. On the previous date, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State was directed to bring on record the recommendation of the District Level Advisory Committee held on22.09.2025, which has been brought on record by an additional affidavit dated 16.03 .2026.

5. During course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the cancellation of the registration of the appellant is not on the basis of the alleged complaint made by certain persons or the show cause notice dated 08.07.2025. The learned writ Court has erroneously been persuaded by ,f / the proceedings under show cause notice dated 08.07.2025, whereas neither the show cause notice nor the impugned order is based upon the charges relating to the complaint dated 03.07.2025. It is submitted that appellant had duly i! 6 submitted its explanation dated 16.09.2025 to all the charges contained in the show cause notice dated 10.09.2025 but they have been summarily overruled without any reason or application of mind. Therefore, the learned writ Court has failed to :onsider this aspect of,the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

6. Learnr:d Assistant Government Pleader for the State has defended the impugned o::der but he has not disputed that the context and the text of the impugned ol:der is unrelated to the incidents in respect of which a show cause notice was ir;sued on 08.07.2025 upon the appellant.

7. Upon hearing leamed counsel f,or the parties and taking note of the relevant materials placed on record, we find that the impugned order is based on a number c,f allegations, which have been extracted herein above, relating to non-cbmpliance of the statutory requirements under the Act of 2010 and not maintainin6l register as per the PC & PNDT Act, 1994. Both the Acts provide for a forum of appeal against cancellation of registration. The PC & PNDT Act of 1994 p,rovides for a forum of appeal under Section 20(1) before the concerned Government which is the State Government in the present case, as the impuglred order is passed by the State Appropriate Authority. Whether the appellant ttad submitted proper explanation to the charges contained in the show cause notice dated 10.09.2025, which have been extracted herein above and 7 whether the explanation dated 16.09.2025 fumished by the appellant had wrongly been ignored or overlooked by the Appropriate Authority is a matter relating to scrutiny on merits of the issue at hand. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant should approach the appellate authority within a period of two weeks against [he orderdated 07.11.2025 passed by the I 3'd respondent, which is impugned in W.P.No.35986 of 2025, by taking all such grounds of law and facts as are available to it.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above, since the leamed writ Court has also observed that the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the 3'd respondent, the forum of appeal available to such an aggrieved person cannot be denied. However, the dismissal of the writ petition may come in the way of the appellant in preferring such an appeal and more over observations made therein would prejudice the case of the appellant before the appellate authority.

9. In such circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Appellant is granted liberty to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 20(l) of the PC & PNDT Act, 1994 before the State Government within a period of two (02) weeks. If such an appeal is preferred, the Appellate Authority would consider it and take a decision thereupon within a period of ten ( l0) weeks thereafter. 8

10. The \Vrit Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR .- L* SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Medical and Family Welfare (D1), Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat at Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Tetangana State, Hyclerabad.

3. The District Collector and District Magistrate/Chairman and District Registering Authority and Appropriate Authority, District LevelAppropriate Aut'nority Committee Under PC and PNDT Act-1994, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Disl:rict at Bhongir.

4. Ther District Medical and Health Officer, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District at Bhongir.

5. One CC to SRIT.VASANTHA RAO, Advocate IOPUCJ 6. Twr CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW, High Court for the State of Tel;angana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

7. Onr-. CC to Ms. SAHITHI SRI KAVYA M, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Twr CD Copies PSK./PMK M. \ HIGH COURT 30to3t2 I 1 I I JUDGMENT WA.No.214 o12026 oK iHt o.J * 00 APfl 2026 * .i','. .a .L +ey1i4g[)-).;' . ..':.=--:;- ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL o \\ ,r\. g €