IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.6000 OF 2018 & 6189 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. ANAND KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SRI KRISHNA REDDY R RESIDING AT NO.49, 3RD MAIN DOMLUR 2ND STAGE BANGALORE 560071 (By MR.N C MOHAN, ADV. FOR MR.RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD M S, ADV.) AND:
1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL REP BY ITS REGISTRAR # 16/6, 2ND FLOOR MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE 560052 2. DR HARSHANGI VEERABHADRAPPA S @ DR H VEERABHADRAPPA ENQUIRY OFFICER KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL #16/6, 2ND FLOOR MILLER TANK BED AREA VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE 560052 3. DR ASHOK GUPTA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE SRI YOGENDRA SWAROOP GUPTA CLINICAL OFFICE SUITE NO.16 … PETITIONER LAUD MANSION 21 M KARVE ROAD OPP CHARNI ROAD STREET MUMBAI 400004 … RESPONDENTS (By MR.D S HOSMATH, ADV. FOR R1 & R2 (ABSENT) MR.B S GAUTHAM, ADV. FOR R3) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN KMC/ENQ/NO/38/2017 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL, BANGALORE; AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.N.C.Mohan, learned counsel for Mr.Raghavendra Prasad M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.S.Gautham, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.01.2018 passed by the Karnataka Medical Council and the right of cross-examination of the petitioner has been closed.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions briefly stated are that the respondent No.3 has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the respondent No.1. Thereupon, a notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the matter was posted for evidence of the parties. While the respondent No.3 was being cross-examined, the learned counsel for the petitioner remarked before the Karnataka Medical Council that the Medical Council is biased. Thereafter, the cross-examination of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid witness was closed and the matter was posted for filing of affidavit on 17.02.2018. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is trite law that for a fault of negligence of a counsel, a party cannot be penalized. (See: RAFIQ AND ANR. Vs. MUNSHILAL AND ANR., AIR 1981 SC 1400).
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the impugned order passed by the Karnataka Medical Council insofar as it deprives the right of cross- examination of the witnesses to the petitioner is concerned, is quashed. The petitioner is afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent No.3 and the Council shall deal with the matter expeditiously.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV