JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.1.2020 passed by respondent No.3 on recommendation of the Advisory Committee under the Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') cancelling the registration of Sonography Centre of petitioner No.1 which is a Hospital run by petitioner No.2. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner's hospital was granted registration under the Act for a period of five years by order of respondent No.3 dated 3.2.2016. It was valid till 2.2.2021. An inspection of sonography facility at the petitioner's hospital was made on 23.8.2019 by National Inspection and Monitoring Committee. Based on its report a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.3 on 3.9.2019 requiring the petitioner to submit reply within seven days in respect of short comings enumerated in the notice failing which legal action as contemplated under the Act, shall be taken. The petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation in respect of each charge on 17.9.2019. By the impugned order, the registration of sonography facility of the petitioner's hospital has been cancelled for alleged violation of the provisions of the Act. Petitioner No.2 claims to have submitted an application for renewal of registration on 16.3.2021 in the office of respondent No.4. At that stage, petitioner No.2 was informed that it was not possible to renew the registration as it had already been cancelled by respondent No.3 by the impugned order. 4. One of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The order does not take into consideration the explanation of the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel is in receipt of instructions from the Chief Medical Officer, Ghazipur and the same has been placed on record for our perusal. 6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that although impugned order passed by respondent No.3 only mentions that the explanation has not been found to be satisfactory, therefore, the registration is being cancelled but the Advisory Committee had considered the explanation of the petitioner in all respect. In order to buttress the submission he has produced before us the minutes of the meeting of Advisory Committee held on 17.9.2019. In order to buttress the submission he has produced before us the minutes of the meeting of Advisory Committee held on 17.9.2019. At Item No.3, the Advisory Committee has noted that the petitioner's hospital had submitted its reply which was considered by the member of the Committee and they do not agree to the same and therefore had recommended for cancellation of registration of the petitioner's hospital under the Act. 7. As noted above, the order of respondent No.3 only mentions that the Advisory Committee had not found the explanation to be satisfactory, consequently, the registration is being cancelled. 8. It is well settled that in order to meet the requirements of principles of natural justice, the person affected has to be afforded opportunity of hearing. One of the facet thereof is that the explanation submitted by such person is taken into consideration. It pre-supposes application of mind and as a necessary corollary thereof, the decision should contain reasons for not accepting the explanation. 9. As noted above, the minutes of the Advisory Committee does not contain any reason at all except for the observation that the members of the Committee did not find the explanation to be satisfactory and likewise, respondent No.3 had also proceeded to cancel the registration by simply recording that the explanation was not found satisfactory by the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, nor the impugned order records any satisfaction that the petitioner had not complied with the requirements of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder albeit it being a sine-qua-non for cancelling the registration under Section 19(2) of the Act. 10. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the decision of the Advisory Committee as well as consequent order passed by respondent No.3 cancelling the registration of petitioner's sonography facility are in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained and hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 11. The application for renewal of registration of the sonography facility of the petitioner's hospital shall be considered in the light of the decision that would be taken by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned order. 12. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to move fresh application in that regard. 11. The application for renewal of registration of the sonography facility of the petitioner's hospital shall be considered in the light of the decision that would be taken by the respondents in pursuance of the impugned order. 12. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to move fresh application in that regard. It is clarified that until petitioners get a fresh registration under the Act, they shall not carry on any activity relating to sonography or any other kind of scanning which is prohibited under the Act without a valid registration. 13. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.