(Prayer: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act against the order dated 25.07.2022 in WP Nos.18909 and 18912 of 2022.)

Common Judgment

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J.

1. After hearing the writ appeals at length, we found that the order under challenge dated 26.07.2022 is mainly based on the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022 dated 21.07.2022. The order aforesaid was challenged in W.A.Nos.1758 and 1759 of 2022 and was reversed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 05.08.2022. In the light of the aforesaid, the challenge to the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 has been made herein with a prayer to govern it by the judgment dated 05.08.2022 in W.A.Nos.1758 and 1759 of 2022.

2. It is alleged by learned Additional Advocate-General that the writ petitions were disposed of without affording an opportunity to the writ appellant to file counter-affidavit justifying their action and accordingly, the prayer is to allow the writ appeal.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the writ appellants were having an opportunity to submit the counter-affidavit. The writ petitions were disposed of not on the first day of hearing, rather, it was adjourned and disposed of on the next date of hearing.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner submits that since the order under challenge is mainly based on the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2022 rendered in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022 and the said order having been reversed by the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1758 and 1759 of 2022 by judgment dated 05.08.2022, this Court may pass appropriate order. It is, however, submitted that certain issues raised by the writ petitioner/respondent have not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge. One of the issues is in reference to the action initiated by the writ appellants by issuing a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act of 1994') and without considering the reply given by the respondent/writ petitioner to the said show cause notice, the suspension orders under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1994 and under Section 5(2) and 6(1) of the Tamilnadu Clinical Establishment Act, 1997 (in short 'the Act of 1997') were issued. The issue aforesaid goes to the root of the case.

5. The other issue was that the orders under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1994 and Sections 5(2) and 6(1) of the Act of 1997 have been passed in a cyclostyle manner having been worded in similar lines, despite it being passed by different authorities at different places. Thus, it was without application of mind and accordingly, either this Court may address the aforesaid issues or the matter may be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for afresh hearing of the writ petitions, however, liberty may be given to the respondent/writ petitioner to raise all the available grounds to challenge the orders impugned in the writ petition.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the writ appellants submits that no one has precluded the respondent/writ petitioner to raise all issues while arguing the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge and if this Court permits the respondent/writ petitioner to raise those issues before the learned Single Judge by remanding the matter back, the order impugned may be quashed and the writ appellants may be given liberty to file a detailed counter to justify their action, as no opportunity for filing a detailed counter was given exposing the conduct of the respondent/writ petitioner through relevant documents.

7. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and find that the impugned order was passed in reference to the order dated 21.07.2022 in the Writ Petition Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022. The order aforesaid was applied to the present writ petitions and accordingly, interference in the orders of suspension under Section 20(3) of the Act of 1994 and Sections 5(2) and 6(1) of the Act of 1997 was made and the writ petitions were disposed of without affording an opportunity to the writ appellants to file a detailed counter justifying their action. The aforesaid is one issue otherwise, the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner has raised other issues which were not addressed by the learned Single Judge, as the writ petitions were disposed of mainly based on the earlier judgment dated 21.07.2022 in W.P.Nos.18572 and 18573 of 2022. Since appropriate opportunity of hearing is to be given, we accept the prayer of both the parties to remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for afresh hearing with liberty to the respondent/writ petitioner to raise all the available grounds and issues for challenge to the impugned orders in the writ petition and at the same, the learned Additional Advocate General is given liberty to file a detailed counter and contest the writ petitions on available grounds.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 26.07.2022 passed in W.P.Nos.19162 and 19166 of 2022 is quashed with remand of the matter for afresh hearing and appropriate orders thereon. The respondent/writ petitioner would be at liberty to press for interim relief before the learned Single Judge and it is for the learned Addition

al Advocate General to oppose it. 9. The learned single Judge would deal with all the issues raised by the parties after considering the facts available on record as well as the legal issues raised therein, without being influenced by any observation made in this judgment. 10. With the aforesaid, the writ appeals are disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently,CMP.Nos.13570, 13580 and 13582 of 2022 are closed. 11. Looking to the urgency shown by the parties, the Registry is directed to list the writ petitions before the roster Single Bench on 13.09.2022.