Judgment : 1) Common question arises for determination in these three writ petitions. The Government Pleader for Medical and Health is also heard after he obtaining instructions from the respondents. 2) The petitioner in W.P. No.7737 of 2012 is Venkateshwara Imaging Centre, Warangal. The petitioner in W.P. No.8084 of 2012 is Warangal Hospitals Diagnostics & Research Centre (Pvt) Limited, Warangal. The petitioner in W.P. No.8075 of 2012 is Laxmi Narasimha Hospital, Warangal. They have been running ultrasound scanning centres/clinics after obtaining registration from the appropriate authority under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short, the Act). While so, National Inspection and Monitoring Committee (N.I.M.C) on the Act from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi consisting of 4 experts visited the respective petitioners’ ultrasound scanning centres at Warangal along with two witnesses/mediators on 15.03.2012 at different timings and noticed various contraventions under the Act whose details are given in the respective impugned orders dated 17.03.2012. 3) In W.P. No.7737 of 2012, contraventions noticed in the petitioner’s scanning centre are as follows: “A) Form F not submitted. B) Letter of consent not obtained from the patient C) No undertaking from the doctor D) Radiologist/technical expert has changed E) Ultrasonography machine is changed F) The place of the machine is changed G) Monthly report is not regularly submitted” It is further noted that one machine HD-7 ULTRA SOUND C150080 which is registered is missing from the premisis and one un-registered machine i.e., Philips HD-7 C 163110483 Ultra Sound Machine is found in the clinic. It is further found that though one doctor is authorised to conduct scans, three other doctors are conducting scans in the petitioner’s centre without intimating to the appropriate authority. 4) In W.P. No.8075 of 2012, the contraventions noticed are as follows: “A) Form F not submitted. B) Letter of consent not obtained from the patient C) No undertaking from the doctor D) Un registered Ultra Sound machine E) Radiologist/technical expert has changed G) Monthly report is not regularly submitted” It is further noticed that one machine i.e., Philips HD-7 XE C 1531200009 Ultra Sound Machine which is un-registered is found in the centre. Though one doctor is authorised to conduct scans, another doctor was conducting scans illegally without intimating to the appropriate authority. 5) In W.P.No.8084 of 2012, the contraventions noticed are as follows: “A) Form F not submitted. Though one doctor is authorised to conduct scans, another doctor was conducting scans illegally without intimating to the appropriate authority. 5) In W.P.No.8084 of 2012, the contraventions noticed are as follows: “A) Form F not submitted. B) Letter of consent not obtained from the patient C) No undertaking from the doctor D) Period of registration of the Ultrasonography centre has expired. E) Radiologist/technical expert has changed F) Ultra sonography machine is changed G) The place of the machine is dislocated H) Monthly report is not regularly submitted” It is further noted that though one doctor is authorised to conduct scans, four other doctors are conducting scans in the centre illegally without intimating to the appropriate authority. 6) On the above grounds, N.I.M.C team seized the machines from the respective scanning centres under the cover of three different panchanamas. Subsequently N.I.M.C team submitted panchanama reports to the Appropriate Authority under the Act who is the District Medical and Health Officer. On the basis of N.I.M.C team reports, the District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal and appropriate authority under the Act passed the impugned orders separately cancelling registration of the petitioners’ ultra sound scanning centres under the Act. Questioning the same, the respective petitioners filed these writ petitions. 7) Primary contention of the petitioners is failure on the part of the appropriate authority under the Act to give reasonable opportunity to the respective petitioners by way of giving show cause notice. Along with the respective cancellation orders, the appropriate authority enclosed and sent all the documents including panchanama copy to the respective petitioners. It is pointed out by all the petitioners that even though N.I.M.C team noticed certain contraventions under the Act, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners that they were indulging any misuse for sex determination leading to foeticide. It is pointed out by all the petitioners that even though N.I.M.C team noticed certain contraventions under the Act, there is no allegation against any of the petitioners that they were indulging any misuse for sex determination leading to foeticide. Preamble of the Act sets out objects and reasons for the enactment in the following terms: “An Act to provide for the prohibition of sex selection, before or after conception, and for regulation of pre-natal diagnostic techniques for the the purposes of detecting genetic abnormalities or metabolic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities or certain congenital malformations or sex-linked disorders and for the prevention of their misuse for sex determination leading to female foeticide and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” For securing the said object, the Act provides for various regulatory measures by way of checks on genetic counselling centres, genetic laboratories and genetic clinics as well as pre-natal diagnostic techniques. When there is non-compliance of the regulatory provisions of the Act, there is every likelihood of the centres or clinics indulging in such activity which is contrary to object for which the Act was passed. It is immaterial whether a particular centre was caught red-handed or not in their misuse for sex determination which may lead to female foeticide. It is not necessary that there should be an allegation of contravening the object for which the Act was enacted, for cancellation of registration of the centre or clinic under the Act. As per Section 20(2) of the Act, mere breach of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder is sufficient ground for cancellation of registration. 8) No doubt, Section 21(ii) of the Act provides for filing an appeal against order of suspension or cancellation of registration passed by the appropriate authority under Section 20 of the Act to the State Government. 8) No doubt, Section 21(ii) of the Act provides for filing an appeal against order of suspension or cancellation of registration passed by the appropriate authority under Section 20 of the Act to the State Government. 9) In Harbanslal Sahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation (2003)2 Supreme Court Cases 107 the Supreme Court on availability of an alternative remedy, held that it is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and that in an appropriate case in spite of availability of alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies viz., (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks(1998)8 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Supreme Court laid down: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at lease three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.” 10) Sheet anchor of the petitioners’ case is failure on the part of the appropriate authority to follow principles of natural justice in giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Act itself provides for in-built and express safeguard for compliance of the principles of natural justice in Section 20 in the following terms: “20. Cancellation or suspension of registration:-(1) The Appropriate Authority may suo moto, or on complaint, issue a notice to the Genetic Councelling 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. Cancellation or suspension of registration:-(1) The Appropriate Authority may suo moto, or on complaint, issue a notice to the Genetic Councelling 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 Councelling 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.” Sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act provides for dispensing with giving prior show-cause notice in certain contingencies. Sub-section (3) reads as follows: “(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 Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such notice referred to in sub-section (1).” It is contended for the petitioners placing reliance on A.K.Kraipak V. Union of India1969(2) Supreme Court Cases 262, S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India(1990)4 Supreme Court Cases 594 and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir V. District Collector, Raigad 2012(3) SCALE 303 of the Supreme Court that recording of reasons is sine-qua-non of the principles of natural justice and that if no reasons are recorded for dispensing with prior show-cause notice, it amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from what was laid down by the Supreme Court, sub-section (3) itself contemplates recording of reasons in writing for dispensing with prior show-cause notice. The said sub-section further expressly provides that the said dispensing with prior show-cause notice should be in case of necessity or expediency in the public interest. Without recording reasons in writing and without specifically finding it to be necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, the appropriate authority cannot invoke subsection (3) of Section 20 for dispensing with prior show-cause notice. Without recording reasons in writing and without specifically finding it to be necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, the appropriate authority cannot invoke subsection (3) of Section 20 for dispensing with prior show-cause notice. It may be noted that sub-section (3) provides for such dispensing with prior show-cause notice only in the event of exercising the power of suspension of registration under sub-section (2) of Section 20. If the appropriate authority intended to cancel registration, then sub-section (3) is not available to the appropriate authority to dispense with the requirement of giving prior show-cause notice under sub-sections (1) and (2). There is no provision for dispensing with issuing of prior show-cause notice in case the appropriate authority intended to cancel registration. The appropriate authority not only under general principles of natural justice but also in view of the express and specific provision contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20, has to necessarily give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the centre or clinic after giving show-cause notice as to why its registration should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in that notice. In the present cases, the District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal who is the appropriate authority gave a total gobye to the statutory safeguards contained in Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Act before exercising his power or authority of cancellation of registration of the petitioners’ centres/clinics under the Act. There is clear violation of the statutory pre-requisits as well as principles of natural justice in this case in the failure on the part of the District Medical and Health Officer who is the appropriate authority under the Act in cancelling registration of the centres/clinics of the petitioners under the Act. 11) The Government Pleader for Medical and Health contended that the appropriate authority may be directed to re-consider the decisions of cancellation after giving opportunity to the petitioners. 12) Apart from giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, Section 20(2) of the Act further casts duty on the appropriate authority to have advice of the Advisory Committee, before passing any order of suspension of registration or cancellation of registration. Section 17(5) of the Act contemplates constitution of Advisory Committee by the Government for the purpose of aiding and advising the appropriate authority in discharge of its functions. Section 17(5) of the Act contemplates constitution of Advisory Committee by the Government for the purpose of aiding and advising the appropriate authority in discharge of its functions. It is the function of Advisory Committee under Section 17(8) of the Act to consider any application for registration or any complaint for suspension or cancellation of registration and giving advice thereon. Without placing the respective complaints/ panchanama reports and respective proposals for cancellation of registration of the petitioners under the Act and without taking advice of the advisory committee, the appropriate authority cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Section 20 (2) of the Act for cancelling registrations of the petitioners in these matters. Taking advice of the advisory committee is a condition precedent for either suspending or cancelling registration by the appropriate authority. The impugned actions of the appropriate authority/District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal are ultra vires and are vitiated by improper exercise of jurisdiction and suffers from violation of not only general principles of natural justice but also statutory provisions relating to natural justice; and are therefore cannot stand. 13) In the result, all three writ petitions are allowed quashing respective orders dated 17.03.2012 of the District Medical and Health Officer and appropriate authority under the Act, Warangal cancelling registrations of the petitioners under the Act. It is open to the District Medical and Health Officer and Appropriate Authority under the Act to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 20(1) and (2) of the Act before taking any fresh action against the petitioners in pursuance of panchanama reports of N.I.M.C team of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi dated 15.03.2012.