ORDER : 1. Present application has been filed by invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of issuance of process against the applicant and for quashing the order passed by respondent No. 2 for suspending the license of sonography centre. 2. The applicants have come with a case that the applicant No. 1 is the Gynecologist and runs hospital in the name of Matoshri Hospital. Applicant No. 2 is a Government servant and he is a chest specialist. Respondent No. 2 is the Medical Officer of Nanded Municipal Corporation, Nanded. Respondent No. 2 has filed a private complaint bearing R. C. C. No. 392 of 2013 alleging that a tip of was received by the vigilance cell that the accused No. 3 facilitates sex determination. Therefore, the vigilance cell has decided to introduce a decoy customer. The decoy customer contacted accused No. 3. Accused No. 3 had demanded an amount of Rs. 12,000/- as a fees to be given to the concerned Doctor. Amount to be given for the sonography was given by witness No. 6 Jyoti Hegde. The decoy customer, witness No. 6 and accused No. 3 then sat in auto rickshaw owned by accused No. 4. The witness No. 6 had handed over the amount to the accused No. 3. Accused No. 3 had also demanded the amount of Rs. 500/as fare charges of auto rickshaw. That amount was also given by witness No. 6 to accused No. 4. After filling the petrol, accused No. 4 roamed around the city for some time and thereafter, brought the decoy customer and other to Matoshri Hospital. It has been alleged that the sonography was conducted by applicant No. 2 on decoy customer and applicant No. 1 and a nurse were present at that time. Both the applicants then informed the decoy customer in presence of witness No. 6 that the foetus is a girl child. Thereafter, accused No. 3 brought them back to the auto rickshaw and asked the decoy customer whether she wishes to abort the child as she knows the doctor who does abortion and takes less charges. Thereafter, accused No. 3 became suspicious when witness No. 6 had made a hone call to the vigilance cell. Thereafter, accused No. 4 drove the auto rickshaw around the city and tried to evade vigilance cell persons. Thereafter, accused No. 3 became suspicious when witness No. 6 had made a hone call to the vigilance cell. Thereafter, accused No. 4 drove the auto rickshaw around the city and tried to evade vigilance cell persons. Witness No. 6 told thereafter to stop near the residence of Police Commissioner. Thereafter, with the help of constable who was on duty at the residence of Police Commissioner, the accused No. 3 and 4 were taken to Bhagyanagar Police Station. Certain amount was recovered from the person of accused No. 3. Thereafter, the complainant and vigilance cell members visited the Matoshri Hospital and recovered the amount of Rs. 1,500/-which was given to accused No. 1 by accused No. 3 from decoy customer. The complainant had also taken search of the documents of the decoy customer and found that form “F” was not filled, so also the declaration was not taken. Some irregularities were also found with the registers and documents of other patients. Applicant No. 1 was served with a notice dated 6.6.2012 which was replied by applicant No. 1 on 11.6.2012. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the private complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 3. Taking into consideration the record, process came to be issued against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4, 5, 6 and 29, rule 4 and 9 read with Section 23 of Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 5.7.2013. The present application has been filed in order to quash the said order and the proceedings against the present applicants. 4. Applicants have contended in the application that the complainant can not be said to be a “Competent Authority” under the PCPNDT Act to initiate the criminal prosecution. The complainant has filed the copy of corrigendum dated 3.2.2016 to the Govt. Resolution dated 9.12.1997 which clearly mentioned that at the district place the Civil Surgeon shall be the “Appropriate Authority”. Where at a district place there is no Civil Surgeon then the Dean of the Medical College shall be the “Appropriate Authority” and where there is no Medical college, Medical Officer of the Municipal Corporation shall be the “Appropriate Authority”. It is stated that the Civil Surgeon is available at Nanded and therefore, original complainant can not be said to be an “Appropriate Authority”. It is stated that the Civil Surgeon is available at Nanded and therefore, original complainant can not be said to be an “Appropriate Authority”. The allegations in the complaint have been denied and it is also stated that an appropriate reply has been given to the show cause notice that was issued by the complainant. The letter clarifying the situation to the authority was never taken into consideration. It is stated that the complaint has been filed due to the grudge or vendetta. The learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration various resolutions passed by the Govt. giving authority to the above persons. When the complaint itself was not maintainable, the order of issuance of process ought not to have been passed. 5. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondent wherein it has been stated that she is giving the reply on behalf of respondent No. 2, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation in the capacity as the then appropriate authority under the PCPNDT Act. She has stated that Section 17(4) of the PCPNDT Act empowers the “Appropriate Authority” to grant, suspend or cancel the registration of a Genetic Counseling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic. “Appropriate Authority” is also empowered for institution of complaints for breach of provisions under the Act and to take immediate action against use of any sex selection techniques. She claims that she is an “Appropriate Authority” by virtue of notification dated 11.9.1997 and 9.12.1997. Additional Director (HS) FW, MCH and Family Welfare Pune 1 being a State Appropriate Authority is notified by the State Govt. for the implementation of PCPNDT Act has constituted a vigilance squad by order dated 2.2.2013 for the inspection of sonography centres of Aurangabad and Latur Health Circles. She is the member of the said squad. She reiterates the facts of the complaint as the true incident. She has also stated that taking into consideration the facts of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly issued the process against the applicants. 6. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Kulkarni for the applicants, learned A. P. P. for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. R. K. Ingole for respondent No. 2. She has also stated that taking into consideration the facts of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly issued the process against the applicants. 6. Heard learned Advocate Ms. Kulkarni for the applicants, learned A. P. P. for respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Mr. R. K. Ingole for respondent No. 2. The crux of the matter on which the order as well as proceedings are challenged by the applicants is that the complainant can not be said to be an Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act by virtue of various Govt. Resolutions and therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable. The complaint has been filed assuming that the complainant is an Appropriate Authority under the said Act. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant has taken me through all the relevant Govt. Resolutions. As per the complainant, she had the authority under the Govt. Resolution dated 11.9.1997. However, the perusal of the said resolution itself would make it clear that the Civil Surgeons or Dean of Medical Colleges (where Civil Surgeons are not available) at every district level were appointed as an “Appropriate Authority” under the PCPNDT Act. This resolution has been produced by the respondent No. 2 alongwith her reply also. She has also relied on the Govt. Resolution dated 9.12.1997. But, that is in respect of appointing a Dean of B. J. Medical College and the respective Medical Superintendent in the remaining Municipal Corporation Areas, the respective Health Officer is being appointed as the State Appropriate Authority. However, these 2 resolutions have been interpreted in Criminal Writ Petition No. 250/2015 by the Division Bench of this Court. In that case also, the complainant was Medical Officer, Health, Municipal Corporation and it has been held that she can not be said to be the “Appropriate Authority”. It was in respect of Aurangabad District. It has been specifically observed that though the respondent therein the Medical Officer claimed that she is an Appropriate Authority, yet, that assumption is totally unjustifiable in view of the notification issued by the State Govt. on 9.12.1997. It was also observed that in order to demonstrate that she had authority to file the complaint, it was necessary on the part of the complainant therein that there is neither the post of District Civil Surgeon nor that of the Medical Superintendent affiliated to the Medical College at Aurangabad. on 9.12.1997. It was also observed that in order to demonstrate that she had authority to file the complaint, it was necessary on the part of the complainant therein that there is neither the post of District Civil Surgeon nor that of the Medical Superintendent affiliated to the Medical College at Aurangabad. By virtue of residuary clause of the said Notification dated 9.12.1997, the Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation is required to act as an Appropriate Authority. However, when superior posts are available at Aurangabad, the said residuary clause in the notification will not come into play and will not give any authority to the Medical Officer, Health. It has been further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the facts of this case are similar to the facts of facts involved in the present application. 7. The notice that was issued by the complainant on 3.6.2013 was replied by applicant No. 1 on 7.6.2013. By order dated 12.6.2013, the complainant had canceled the licence granted to Matoshri Hospital and Sonography Centre. The said order dated 12.6.2013 does not consider the reply given by applicant No. 1 in proper sense. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicant, therefore, prayed for quashment of the proceeding before Chief Mudicial Magistrate and setting aside the order passed by the complainant on 12.6.2013. 8. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that she is an Appropriate Authority by virtue of the notifications dated 11.9.1997 and 12.9.1997. Further, as per Notification dated 16.3.2016, the Govt. of Maharashtra has again specified and appointed various authorities as an Appropriate Authorities; wherein for entire district except Municipal Corporation and Municipal Council area the Appropriate Authority would be District Collector and District Civil Surgeon. However, as regards the Municipal Corporation area is concerned, the Appropriate Authority would be Municipal Commissioner of the concerned Municipal Corporation. The applicants had relied upon the order of this Court wherein one Medical Practitioner from Nanded had challenged the proceedings against her under PCPNDT Act in Criminal Writ Petition No. 88/2017, which was instituted by the present respondent No. 2 and this Court by order dated 20.12.2017 had dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, when the said complaint was also filed in the same capacity and order of issuance of process was challenged in that order also, was rejected. Therefore, when the said complaint was also filed in the same capacity and order of issuance of process was challenged in that order also, was rejected. Same view is required to be taken in this case. 9. The complainant has filed the complaint i.e. R. C. C. No. 392/2013 under the designation “Appropriate Authority” under PCPNDT Act, Govt. of Maharashtra and Medical Health Officer, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded. The statement has been made in the complaint itself that as per the Govt. Resolution dated 6.11.2001, she has been appointed as an Appropriate Authority by the Govt. of Maharashtra. Surprisingly, in her Affidavit-in-reply she has not stated that she is relying upon the said resolution dated 6.11.2001 and she has also not filed the said Resolution alongwith her affidavit-in-reply. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 250/2015 had taken a note of all the Govt. Resolutions right from Govt. Resolution dated 9.12.1997. Hence, interpretation of those Resolutions have been made and therefore, it is beyond the scope of this Court to interpret that again. A note has been taken in respect of the said Govt. Notification dated 6.11.2001 and it has been observed that by that notification, Govt. has been pleased to appoint the Medical Superintendent of Rural Hospital at every Taluka level is the Appropriate Authority. Under such circumstance, if by that Resolution Medical Superintendent of the Rural Hospital of the Taluka was made an Appropriate Authority, it was for the complainant to show that she was the Medical Superintendent at that time. Further, the area in which the incident is stated to have taken place is the Municipal Corporation area. It is not within Rural area at Taluka level. It is to be noted that in complaint, the complainant is not relying upon some other Govt. Resolution i.e. Govt. Resolution relied upon in the affidavit-in-reply before this Court. As regards the Govt. Resolutions which had been relied by the respondent No. 2 in her affidavit-in-reply, they had already been interpreted in the abovesaid Writ Petition of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The complaint, against which said Writ Petition was filed, was also filed by the Medical Officer, Health, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, which was for the corporation area. As regards the Govt. Resolutions which had been relied by the respondent No. 2 in her affidavit-in-reply, they had already been interpreted in the abovesaid Writ Petition of the Hon’ble Division Bench. The complaint, against which said Writ Petition was filed, was also filed by the Medical Officer, Health, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, which was for the corporation area. After interpreting the various Resolutions which were in force till then i.e. on the date of pronouncement of Judgment on 16.10.2015, it was held that the Medical Health Officer of the Municipal Corporation can not be said to be an “Appropriate Authority”. The said decision is binding. It is to be noted that now the respondent is relying upon the Govt. Resolution dated 16.3.2016 wherein it is stated that for Municipal Corporation area the Medical Health Officer would be the Appropriate Authority. Here in this case, offence is stated to have taken place on 2013 and also the complaint was filed in 2013. Therefore, the Govt. Resolution which was then prevalent would give the authority to the complainant to file complaint. Complainant again relied on the subsequent changes made by the Govt. while giving empowerment. Perusal of the Govt. Resolution dated 16.3.2016 would reveal that there is a reference to and clarification to the Govt. Resolution dated 15.5.2015. The said Govt. Resolution has been made available. By this Govt. Resolution, Govt. was pleased to appoint the Appropriate Authorities and in respect of Municipal Corporation level Municipal Commissioner, Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Medical Health Officer (Ward-wise) are the “Appropriate Authority”. At the end it has been stated in the said Resolution : “The Government of Maharashtra further directs that, the function provided under clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 17 of the said Act, to grant suspend or cancel registration of a Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory of Genetic Clinic Vest only with the Medical Appropriate Authorities of the District or Corporation, as the case may be. The Appropriate Authority shall perform the other functions mentioned in the said Act. Old cases (if any) pending on the date of publication of the said notification shall be dealt by the concerned authorities.” 10. Thus, for the first time it appears that the Medical Appropriate Authorities of the Corporation were given the authorities provided under Section 17(4)(a) of the PCPNDT Act. Old cases (if any) pending on the date of publication of the said notification shall be dealt by the concerned authorities.” 10. Thus, for the first time it appears that the Medical Appropriate Authorities of the Corporation were given the authorities provided under Section 17(4)(a) of the PCPNDT Act. Even if it is required to be interpreted that to grant, suspend or cancel the registration of Genetic Counseling Centre, Genetic Laboratory and Genetic Clinic was with the Authority. Further, in the said Govt. Resolution it is stated that in old cases, if any pending on the date of publication of the said notification shall be dealt with by the concerned authorities. The interpretation of this can be said that the Appropriate Authorities which were earlier granted the authority under different Govt. Resolution would continue the prosecution of old cases. If there was no authority to the person who had filed the complaint prior to Govt. Resolution dated 15.5.2015, it can not be stated that those other Appropriate Authorities were allowed to continue the prosecution of the old cases. Govt. can not legalize any illegal act retrospectively to cure inherent defect. Therefore, the Govt. Resolution dated 15.5.2015 and 16.3.2016 can not be interpreted to mean that they are giving and protecting the alleged powers given to the complainant. 11. Respondent No. 2 can not take advantage of dismissal of Criminal Writ Petition No. 88/2017 by this Court on 20.12.2017 because the “authority” of the respondent in the said case was not challenged in that petition. If it would have been then the decision and finding of the Hon’ble Division Bench would have been binding on that Court also which has decided the said Writ Petition. 12. Taking into consideration abovesaid reasons it can be said that the applicants are successful in showing that the respondent No. 2 was not the Appropriate Authority to lodge the complaint under PCPNDT Act against them. It would be an abuse of process of law, if the complaint is allowed to proceed further and therefore, in view of the decision in State of Haryana and Ors. V/s Bhajanlal and Ors., [1992 Supp.1 SCC 335], this is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be exercised. 13. V/s Bhajanlal and Ors., [1992 Supp.1 SCC 335], this is a fit case where inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be exercised. 13. As aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 was not an Appropriate Authority under PCPNDT Act and therefore, had no authority to cancel the licence of sonography centre run by the applicant No. 1 and therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 2 for cancellation of licence on 12.6.2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, following order; ORDER (i) The application is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings and order of issuance of process dated 5.7.2013 in R. C. C. No. 392/2013 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded against the present applicants is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The order dated 12.6.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 on notice dated 3.6.2013 whereby the licence was suspended is hereby quashed and set aside.