1 CGHC010171472026 2026:CGHC:42013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2111 of 2026 • Balaji Diagnostic Centre, Khairagarh Through The Director Smt. Asha Agrawal, W/o Shri Dushyant Agrawal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Balaji Diagnostic Centre, In Front Of CHC Hospital, Ward No.04, Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Directorate Of Health Services Through The Director, North Block, Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Joint Director PCPNDT Act, Directorate Of Health Services, North Block, Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Divisional Joint Director Directorate Of Health Services, Raipur/Durg Division, Old Nursing Hostel, DKS Parisar, North Block, Sector 19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, (C.G.). 5. The Collector Cum Appropriate Authority PCPNDT, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.). 6. The Chief Medical And Health Officer District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by CHANDRAKANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.10.01 10:47:01 +0530 2 7. The District Nodal Officer PCPNDT, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) (Authorized By Appropriate Authority PCPNDT). 8. The State Program Officer PCPNDT Act, Directorate Of Health Services, North Block, Sector 19, Swasthya Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 26/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 5/ Collector cum Appropriate Authority under the PCPNDT Act whereby the registration of the petitioner / Balaji Diagnostic Centre has been placed under suspension and the centre has been sealed, in the larger interest of justice; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby quashing the impugned inspection report dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P/2) prepared by the incompetent and illegally constituted inspection team; in the ends of justice; 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be awarded in favor of the petitioner, including the cost of the petition. ” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities in suspending the registration of the petitioner’s Balaji Sonography Centre and sealing the premises is illegal, arbitrary 3 and contrary to the provisions of the PCPNDT Act. It is submitted that the District Advisory Committee constituted by Respondent No.5/Collector-cum-Appropriate Authority had no competence under Section 17(6) of the PCPNDT Act to conduct search, inspection or seizure. It is further submitted that the inspection was conducted by a committee having no statutory authority under Sections 17 and 30 of the Act, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that the appointment and participation of Respondent No.7/Dr. Manish Baghel, District Nodal Officer, PCPNDT, as a member of the District Advisory Committee was contrary to Rule 18A(2)(ii) of the PCPNDT Rules, 1996, as he was part of the investigating machinery under the Act. It is also submitted that the show-cause notice dated 13.03.2026 was issued in undue haste, granting only 24 hours’ time to the petitioner to submit its reply, and the reply dated 18.03.2026 was not considered by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the inspection conducted on 21.04.2026 was subsequent to the order suspending the petitioner’s registration, despite an earlier inspection having allegedly been conducted on 12.03.2026, which demonstrates the haste in proceeding against the petitioner. Lastly, it is submitted that the requisite “reason to believe” contemplated under Section 30 of the PCPNDT Act was not available before the Appropriate Authority for taking the impugned action. Accordingly, the impugned order of suspension of registration and the consequential sealing of the petitioner’s diagnostic centre deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that the present petition is misconceived and devoid of merit, as the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable right in her favour warranting interference by 4 this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of keeping the present petition pending, learned State Counsel is directed to ascertain that whether a Radiologist has been appointed at the concerned Diagnostic Centre or not. If, upon such inquiry, it is found that a Radiologist has been duly appointed, the State authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law regarding opening of the petitioner’s Diagnostic Centre. In the meantime, if the Radiologist has already been appointed, the petitioner shall be permitted to run the Diagnostic Centre. However, in case any adverse order is passed or the petitioner is dissatisfied with the inquiry report, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate petition before this Court. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Chandrakant