JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Ms. R.V. Acharya waives service of notice of rule for respondent nos.1 and 2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the respondent authority be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Oza for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Acharya for the respondents. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Oza for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a doctor and acquired the qualification of Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynecology as well as M.D. from B.J. Medical College. He has obtained registration from the respondent authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC & PNDT Act' for short). The said registration is renewed from time to time. It is submitted that the District Appropriate Authority-respondent no.1 herein had sent different sub-district appropriate authorities twice on 5.3.2018 and 10.5.2018 for visit of the clinic of the petitioner and during the said visit, nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. Learned advocate has referred to the report submitted by the said authority, copy of which is produced at page 18 of the compilation. 4.1. It is submitted that though nothing adverse was found against the petitioner, the respondent no.1 issued the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018 to the petitioner in which it is alleged that the petitioner has committed various irregularities and/or illegalities. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to give his explanation within a period of seven days as to why on the basis of such irregularities, his registration may not be cancelled/suspended. It is submitted that before the petitioner could submit his reply, within a period of two days i.e. on 21.5.2018, the respondent authority passed an order by which the registration of the petitioner under the aforesaid Act came to be suspended for a period of 90 days i.e. upto 19.8.2018. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Oza would further contend that the petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal before the appellate authority. 4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Oza would further contend that the petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal before the appellate authority. In the meantime, the petitioner has also submitted reply and pointed out that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity or illegality as alleged by the respondents in the show cause notice. It is submitted that without considering the same, the respondent authority has passed the impugned order dated 3.8.2018 by which the registration granted in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act came to be cancelled. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this petition. 4.3. Learned advocate Mr. Oza would contend that in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018, the respondent authority has already taken an action by suspending the registration of the petitioner for a period of 90 days by way of an order dated 21.5.2018. Thereafter, the respondent authority has not issued any notice to the petitioner for cancellation of the registration and on the basis of the recommendation dated 1.8.2018 of Sub-district appropriate authority and Taluka Health Officer, Patan, the registration of the petitioner is cancelled and that too while exercising powers under Section 20(3) of the PC & PNDT Act. At this stage, copy of the said recommendation dated 1.8.2018 is produced on record by the learned advocate for the respondents. 4.4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the provisions contained in Section 20 of the PC & PNDT Act and submitted that the powers exercised by the respondent authority under Section 20(3) of the PC & PNDT Act, by which the registration is cancelled is without jurisdiction and without authority of law. It is further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner nor any show cause notice was issued for cancellation of the registration. He, therefore, submitted that though the petitioner is having alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 21 of the PC & PNDT Act, the petitioner has filed this petition before this Court. He, therefore, urged that on this limited ground, this Court may quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. He, therefore, urged that on this limited ground, this Court may quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Acharya appearing for the respondents authority defended the impugned order passed by the respondent authority and contended that against the impugned order, the petitioner can file an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 21 of the Act and therefore this Court may not entertain this petition. 5.1. Learned advocate Ms. Acharya thereafter has referred to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018, copy of which is produced at page 33 of the compilation and contended that the said show cause notice was issued for cancellation/suspension of the registration granted in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to give his explanation within the stipulated time limit. It is submitted that the respondent authority has suspended the license initially for a period of 90 days and thereafter the petitioner was heard in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018 issued by the respondent authority and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent authority without issuance of the show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5.2. Learned advocate for the respondents thereafter referred to page 41 of the compilation and submitted that in fact the petitioner has admitted in his statement given on 19.5.2018 that he is not maintaining record of sonography and he has not kept the print of such sonography since last two years. Thus, on the basis of the said statement given by the petitioner, when the impugned order is passed, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any illegality while passing the impugned order. 5.3. It is further submitted that in the year 2017 also, certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner and therefore notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.8.2017 pursuant to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.8.2017. However, the said proceedings were closed by accepting the explanation given by the petitioner and warning was given to the petitioner. In spite of that, now the petitioner has committed the alleged irregularity/illegality and therefore the impugned order is passed by the respondent authority. This Court, therefore, may not entertain this petition. 6. However, the said proceedings were closed by accepting the explanation given by the petitioner and warning was given to the petitioner. In spite of that, now the petitioner has committed the alleged irregularity/illegality and therefore the impugned order is passed by the respondent authority. This Court, therefore, may not entertain this petition. 6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that the petitioner is having registration under the provisions of the PC& PNDT Act and is having clinic at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before the show cause notice was issued on 19.5.2018, officers from the respondent authority visited the premises of the petitioner on 5.3.2018 and 10.5.2018 and nothing adverse was found against the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent, in the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court, has specifically admitted in paragraph 5 that twice the officers of the respondent inspected the clinic of the petitioner and since no irregularity was found, no action was taken by the said authority. It is required to be noted that after the visit of 10.5.2018, within a period of nine days only i.e. on 19.5.2018, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging certain irregularities/illegalities committed by him and he was asked to explain why his registration should not be cancelled/suspended. He was asked to give his explanation within a period of seven days. Immediately thereafter, without waiting for the reply/explanation from the petitioner, the respondent authority passed an order on 21.5.2018 by which the registration of the petitioner came to be suspended for period of 90 days. If the said order is carefully examined, it is revealed that for the same irregularities which are mentioned in the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018, the said order came to be passed. It is further revealed that the order dated 21.5.2018 was passed by the respondent authority upon recommendation dated 19.5.2018 in which the sub-district appropriate authority and Taluka Health Officer, Patan has recommended for suspension of the registration. Copy of the said recommendation is produced by the respondent authority along with the further affidavit-in-reply at page 81 of the compilation. It is further revealed that the order dated 21.5.2018 was passed by the respondent authority upon recommendation dated 19.5.2018 in which the sub-district appropriate authority and Taluka Health Officer, Patan has recommended for suspension of the registration. Copy of the said recommendation is produced by the respondent authority along with the further affidavit-in-reply at page 81 of the compilation. It is required to be noted that pursuant to the said recommendation, on 21.5.2018, action is already taken by the respondent authority by which the registration of the petitioner was suspended for a period of 90 days. 7. Thereafter, if the impugned order dated 3.8.2018 is carefully examined, it is revealed that in the said order, there is no reference with regard to issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner. The respondent authority has referred to the recommendation dated 19.5.2018, the order of temporary suspension of registration dated 21.5.1018, the fact of filing of the criminal complaint against the petitioner on 2.7.2018 and another recommendation dated 1.8.2018 by the sub-district appropriate authority and Taluka Health Officer, Patan by which it is recommended that the registration of the petitioner is to be permanently suspended. Thus, admittedly, no show cause notice was issued before the order impugned in this petition is passed against the petitioner. There is no reference with regard to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018 in the preamble portion of the order i.e. Read. 8. It is thus revealed that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent authority on the basis of the recommendation dated 1.8.2018 from the sub-district appropriate authority and Taluka Health Officer, Patan. It is not in dispute that after the receipt of the recommendation from the sub-district appropriate authority, the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing. No show cause notice was issued thereafter and the petitioner was not asked to explain why his registration should not be permanently suspended or cancelled. It appears from the record that the impugned order came to be passed relying upon the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018. However, as observed hereinabove, in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018, the action is already taken by the respondent authority by suspending the registration of the petitioner for a period of 90 days. Thus, for the same show cause notice, two orders-one for suspension and another for cancellation of registration cannot be passed. 9. However, as observed hereinabove, in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018, the action is already taken by the respondent authority by suspending the registration of the petitioner for a period of 90 days. Thus, for the same show cause notice, two orders-one for suspension and another for cancellation of registration cannot be passed. 9. It further transpires from the impugned order that the said order is passed by the respondent authority while exercising the powers under Section 20(3) of the PC & PNDT Act. At this stage, the provision contained in Section 20 of the PC & PNDT Act is required to be referred to. Section 20 provides as under: “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 heard 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 Laboratory or Genetic Clinic without issuing any such notice referred to in sub-section (1).” Thus, if the aforesaid provisions are carefully examined, it is revealed that the appropriate authority is empowered to issue notice suo-moto or on receipt of a complaint and show cause notice can be issued for cancellation or suspension of the registration for the reasons mentioned in the said notice. After giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, the appropriate authority if satisfied that there is a breach of provisions of the Act or the Rules, the registration can be cancelled or suspended. After giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, the appropriate authority if satisfied that there is a breach of provisions of the Act or the Rules, the registration can be cancelled or suspended. Sub-section 3 of Section 20 empowers the respondent authority to suspend the registration without issuance of show cause notice in public interest. However, there is no provision for cancellation of the registration without issuance of any show cause notice. This Court is of the view that sub-section 3 of Section 20 would be applicable for suspension of registration and not for cancellation of registration. 10. At this stage, it is the submission of learned advocate Ms. Acharya appearing for the respondents that the respondent authority has wrongly mentioned the provisions of Section 20(3) in the impugned order. In fact, the authority has passed the order while exercising the powers under Section 20(1) of the PC & PNDT Act. However, this Court is of the view that this submission is misconceived. If the impugned order is once again carefully seen, it is revealed that the respondent authority has specifically observed that the powers of cancellation are exercised under Section 20(3) of the Act in public interest. Thus, now it is not open for the respondent authority to contend that the respondent authority has wrongly mentioned the section. Even that is not the case of the respondent authority in the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court. 11. It is the case of the respondent that in past also, the petitioner has committed some irregularities for which notice was issued to him and thereafter the order dated 14.8.2017 came to be passed by which the petitioner was given warning. Thus, from the aforesaid submission and the order which is produced at page 17 of the compilation, it is clear that so called irregularities/irregularities were considered by the respondent authority and thereafter the order dated 14.8.2017 came to be passed by giving warning to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 5.3.2018 and 10.5.2018, the concerned officers of the respondent authority have visited the clinic of the petitioner but nothing adverse was found. In spite of that, the respondent authority, while passing the impugned order, has considered the alleged irregularities/illegalities committed by the petitioner for last two years. This Court is of the view that the same cannot be considered in view of the order dated 14.8.2017 and the reports dated 5.3.2018 and 10.5.2018. 12. In spite of that, the respondent authority, while passing the impugned order, has considered the alleged irregularities/illegalities committed by the petitioner for last two years. This Court is of the view that the same cannot be considered in view of the order dated 14.8.2017 and the reports dated 5.3.2018 and 10.5.2018. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the contention raised by the learned advocate for the respondent about the maintainability of the petition on the ground of alternative remedy is required to be considered. It is contended that under Section 21 of the PC & PNDT Act, the petitioner can approach before the appellate authority against the impugned order. For considering the said submission, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation V/s Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 is required to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 15 of the said decision that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain the 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 the Supreme Court not to operate as a bar in at least 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 principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision, if the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove are considered, this Court is of the view that the respondent authority has not issued show cause notice to the petitioner before cancellation of the registration. The registration of the petitioner is cancelled on the basis of the recommendation dated 1.8.2018 of the concerned authority. However, after the said recommendation is received, immediately the impugned order came to be passed on 3.8.2018. Further, opportunity of hearing is also not given to the petitioner before cancellation of the registration. The registration of the petitioner is cancelled on the basis of the recommendation dated 1.8.2018 of the concerned authority. However, after the said recommendation is received, immediately the impugned order came to be passed on 3.8.2018. Further, opportunity of hearing is also not given to the petitioner before cancellation of the registration. Thereby, the respondent authorities have violated the principles of natural justice. At this stage, it is to be recalled that the show cause notice dated 19.5.2018 was issued by the respondent authorities for cancellation/suspension of the registration and on the basis of the same, on 21.5.2018, the registration of the petitioner came to be cancelled for a period of 90 days. Thus, for the same show cause notice, two orders cannot be passed. Further, the impugned order came to be passed under Section 20(3) of the PC & PNDT Act in public interest. However, as discussed hereinabove, the powers under Section 20(3) can be exercised for suspension of registration and not for cancellation of registration. Thus, the impugned order passed is without authority of law. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that alternative remedy is not bar for entertaining this petition. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the respondent authority is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted. Petition allowed.