Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1565 (TS)

Soma Kiran Kumar v. State of Telangana

2025-11-19

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER: NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 3 rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings bearing Lr.No.338/PC and PNDT/DM and HO/SRPT/2025/1698, dated 02.08.2025, whereby the registration of the Apple Scan Centre, located at H.No.1-4-249/154/14/2, M.G.Road, Suryapet District, which belongs to Petitioner, has been cancelled. 2. Heard Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T.Vasantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri S.Sandeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the record. 3. Learned Senior counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, a qualified radiologist, completed MBBS in 2006 and M.D. in Radio Diagnosis by 2010, including clinical training at Rajwadi Hospital, and holds all necessary certificates. Petitioner has been running Apple Scan Centre, Suryapet, since 2011, taking over from the previous owner, with all registrations, equipment, and consultants approved under the PC & PNDT Act, including the renewal in June 2024, valid until May 2026. In April 2025, a news report falsely claimed the centre was closed for eight days, which was due to a family emergency. Based on this report, the 3 rd respondent issued notices and subsequently cancelled the centre’s registration despite the petitioner submitting all required explanations and documents, including the renewed registration of consultant Dr.Shaik Zulfakar Ali. Hence, this Writ Petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner further relied upon the Judgment dated 30.04.1976 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1277 of 1968 in the case of The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd Vs. The Union of India and another, (1976) 2 Supreme Court Cases 981 wherein at paragraph No.6, it is specifically held as follows: “6. Before we part with this appeal, we must express our regret at the manner in which the Assistant Collector, the Collector and the Government of India disposed of the proceedings before them. It is incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding differential duty were quasi- judicial proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is incontrovertible that the proceedings before the Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding differential duty were quasi- judicial proceedings and so also were the proceedings in revision before the Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M.Desai v. Testeels Ltd, (C.A.No.245 of 1970, on December 17, 1975) . But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated December 8, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated June 4. 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by administrative authorities and tribunals as indeed, in some kinds of cases with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi- judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi- judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem , a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. The Government of India also failed to give any reasons in support of its order rejecting the revision application. But we may presume that in rejecting the revision application, it adopted the same reason which prevailed with the Collector. The reason given by the Collector was, as already pointed out, hardly satisfactory and it would. therefore, have been better if the Government of India had given proper and adequate reasons dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants while rejecting the revision application. We hope and trust that in future the customs authorities will be more careful in adjudicating upon the proceedings which come before them and pass properly reasoned orders. so that those who are affected by such orders are assured that their case has received proper consideration at the hands of the customs authorities and the validity of the adjudication made by the customs authorities can also be satisfactorily tested in a superior tribunal or court. In fact, it would be desirable that in cases arising under customs and excise laws an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, like the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, is set up which would finally dispose of appeals and revision applications under these laws instead of leaving the determination of such appeals and revision applications to the Government of India. An independent quasi-judicial tribunal would definitely inspire greater confidence in the public mind.” 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that due procedure was followed and sufficient opportunity was granted to petitioner before passing the impugned orders. However, the respondents have no objection if the matters are remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit stating that an inspection revealed several violations and procedural irregularities by petitioner. However, the respondents have no objection if the matters are remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit stating that an inspection revealed several violations and procedural irregularities by petitioner. Under Section 15 of the Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act , 1968, every medical practitioner must register all qualifications, including additional ones, with the concerned State Medical Council and renew them periodically. However, the petitioner’s additional qualification certificate was issued by the Maharashtra Medical Council and not by Respondent No.4. It is also stated that Dr.Shaik Zulfakar Ali was registered with the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council only until 22.06.2025 and obtained additional qualification registration from Respondent No.4 on 23.06.2025, which was after the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 26.04.2025. Petitioner is alleged to have been running Apple Scan Centre at Suryapet since 25.01.2016 without obtaining the required additional qualification registration either for himself or for Dr. Zulfakar Ali, thereby violating multiple legal provisions. Hence, it is contended that petitioner has been illegally practicing Radio-diagnosis in Telangana. Therefore, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 suffers from lack of proper reasoning and does not adequately reflect consideration of the petitioner’s explanations, thereby violating the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siemens Engineering (supra) . Therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 02.08.2025 and the matter is remanded to the original authority/respondent No.3, for fresh adjudication strictly in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and by passing a, reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.