Administrative order restraining a doctor from using sonography machines without notice violates principles of natural justice.

The petitioner, a qualified Gynecologist, was named as an accused in Criminal Case No. 542/2018 following an inspection at Shivalay Hospital where she was a visiting doctor.

The inspection alleged administrative irregularities (maintenance of registers) under the PC PNDT Act, though no allegations of sex determination were made.

Years later, while the petitioner was working at Lotus Hospital, the Respondent No. 1 issued an order dated 04.04.2022 directing the hospital management not to permit the petitioner to operate sonography machines solely due to the pending criminal case.

This communication was issued without serving a notice to the petitioner or providing her an opportunity to be heard.

Section 17 and Section 20 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC PNDT Act), which mandates that the Appropriate Authority must issue a show-cause notice and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard before suspending or cancelling a registration.

The principle established in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark Ors., which holds that an alternative remedy is not a bar to writ jurisdiction where there is a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice or fundamental rights.

The court found that the Respondent Authority passed the restrictive order against the petitioner without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 20 of the PC PNDT Act.

Specifically, the communication was addressed to the hospital trust rather than the petitioner herself, and no prior notice was served upon her.

The court noted that mere pendency of a criminal proceeding (especially one involving administrative paperwork defects rather than sex determination) cannot be a valid ground to unilaterally restrain a doctor from using essential medical equipment like a sonography machine without a hearing.

Consequently, the court determined that the failure to provide an opportunity for hearing constituted a "flagrant violation of principles of natural justice," justifying the intervention under Article 226 despite any statutory appeals available.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned communication dated 04.04.2022.

The matter was remanded to the competent authority with directions to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, following the principles of natural justice, within eight weeks. Case Rule made absolute.