PCPNDT: No bar on doctors from conducting ultrasonography at clinics in 2 different districts- HC relief to radiologist
Orissa High Court
Cuttack: In a recent judgment, the Orissa High Court has held that a qualified Radiologist cannot be barred from conducting ultrasonography at two different clinics or medical establishments located in two different districts, especially when the doctor has been issued a 'no objection certificate' in this regard from his superior authorities in his permanent employment.
Referring to Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules, the HC bench comprising Justice B.P. Routray observed, "There cannot be any hindrance in view of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act and Rules to debar the medical practitioner from conducting ultrasonography in two clinics situating in two different districts and such an interpretation would be not in consonance with the object of the Act."
With this observation, the High Court granted relief to a radiologist and set aside an order that prevented him from conducting ultrasonography at a private clinic in another district from where his permanent employment was.
Case Background:
The petitioner in this case is working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Radio Diagnosis in V.S.S. Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Burla (VIMSAR), located in Sambalpur district. Being a radiologist, he applied to conduct radio-diagnosis at a private hospital in Attabira in the district of Bargarh.
On 16.12.2025, the Superintendent of VIMSAR issued 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner stating that the authority had no objection if the petitioner performed ultrasound at the clinic in Attabira beyond his duty hours. However, subsequently, on 06.04.2026, the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh, prohibited the petitioner from performing the USG in Bargarh as per Rule 3(3) of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the HC.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that when the Petitioner has been permitted by the Superintendent of VIMSAR to conduct USG in Rajaram Health Care, Attabira, the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, Bargarh, has no authority to deprive him on the ground that he is serving in Sambalpur District, taking aid of the provisions under Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules.
On the other hand, the State filed a counter stating that the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh decided to disallow the petitioner in their proceeding dated 24.03.2026, keeping in view the provisions contained in Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules.
It was further stated that when the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in VIMSAR, Burla in the district of Sambalpur, he could not be permitted to perform USG at Rajaram Health Care Ultrasound Clinic situated at Attabira in the district of Bargarh. He further submitted that even though the provision allows the doctor to conduct USG in two hospitals in one district, nowhere is it permitted to conduct USG in two different districts, particularly in the case of a Government Doctor.
At the outset, the Court took note of Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules which states:
“(3) Each medical practitioner qualified under the Act to conduct ultrasonography in a genetic clinic/ultrasound clinic/imaging centre shall be permitted to be registered with a maximum of two such clinics/centres within a district. The Consulting hours for such medical practitioner, shall be clearly specified by each clinic/centre.”
The Court noted that as per these rules, the medical practitioner qualified under the Act is permitted to be registered with a maximum of two such ultrasound centres/clinics within a district.
"But there is no express prohibition contained under the provisions of the Act and Rules to debar the medical practitioner from conducting such practice in two clinics in two different districts. The prescription of maximum two clinics in one district cannot be extended to interpret two clinics in two different districts. The obvious intention to mention in a district is due to the specific authority mentioned for each district under the Act and Rules, i.e. the District Advisory Committee. Since each district contents one District Advisory Committee (DAC) for same district and there cannot be one Committee for more than one district, the wordings have been written that ‘within a district’," observed the HC bench.
"The plain interpretation of the provisions in Rule 3(3) read with the object of the Act does not contradict to such provisions of the Act or intention of the Legislature by permitting the medical practitioner to conduct ultrasonography in two different clinics in two districts. There cannot be any hindrance in view of the provisions of the PC & PNDT Act and Rules to debar the medical practitioner from conducting ultrasonography in two clinics situating in two different districts and such an interpretation would be not in consonance with the object of the Act," it further noted.
Referring to the order issued by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer, the Court noted that the order suggested that since the petitioner was working in Sambalpur district, he cannot be permitted to conduct ultrasonography at a clinic in Bargarh district.
"This would be beyond the authority in Bargarh district in view of “No Objection” granted in favour of the Petitioner by his employer. When the Superintendent of VIMSAR, where the Petitioner is working as Assistant Professor, has not raised any objection to conducting ultrasonography by the Petitioner at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira in the district of Bargarh, the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh cannot reject the prayer of the Petitioner to conduct ultrasonography at Rajaram Health Care on the ground that the Petitioner is working as a Radiologist in Sambalpur district. It is relevant here to take note of the submission of the Petitioner that, Sambalpur and Bargarh are two adjacent districts and the distance between Burla to Attabira is around 25 kms only. Therefore, there cannot be any objection on the part of the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh when the employer of the Petitioner has permitted him to conduct ultrasonography at Attabira," observed the HC bench.
Setting aside the order, the Court ruled, "Though the Petitioner has been refused to conduct ultrasonography at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira with purported reasons under Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules, but on analysis of the same no justification is seen on the part of the District Advisory Committee of Bargarh to apply the provisions of Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules to reject the request of the Petitioner, particularly when the Petitioner is admittedly a qualified Radiologist. It is thus found that the authorities at Bargarh have debarred the Petitioner from conducting ultrasonography at Rajaram Health Care, Attabira on mis-interpretation of the provisions contained in Rule 3(3) of the PC & PNDT Rules and thus, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/25/-vs-state-of-odisha-367307.pdf
