IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.6633/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. B.K.SHIVAPRASAD RAI, S/O. KITTANNA RAI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT SHAURYA, NEAR KRISHNABAGH HOUSE, MARTIN PAIS ROAD, HAT HILL, BEJAI POST, MANGALORE, D.K.-575 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NO.16/6, 2ND FLOOR, VAIDYAKEEYA BHAVANA, MILLER TANK, BED AREA, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 004.
2. COMMONDANT BALASUBRAMANIAN MOHAN, S/O. LATE S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.507, ALPINE, ECO APARTMENTS, OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE- 560 037.
3. DR.MS.SHEWTHA RAO, BAMS, D/O. RAMESH.P, MAJOR, R/AT NO.8, PWD QUARTERS, BONDEL, MANGALURU- 575 011.
4. MR.R.S.SHETTIAN, S/O. D.P.SHETTIAN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ATHENA HOSPITAL, FALNIR ROAD, MANGALURU- 575 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2;
R1, R3 & R4 NOTICE NOT NECESSARY) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 21.01.2017 IN COMPLAINT NO. ENQUIRY 36/2015 PASSED BY THE R-1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 21.01.2017 passed in Enquiry No.36/2015 impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking that a direction be issued to the first respondent to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in W.P.No.56626/2016. This Court, while disposing of the said petition wherein, the petitioner herein had contended that the entire proceedings be quashed, has disposed of the said petition allowing the petitioner to putforth all contentions before the first respondent and in that regard, the first respondent is required to consider and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
3. In that light, keeping in view the fact that through the order at Annexure-A, the first respondent has closed the side of the petitioner and listed the proceedings for cross-examination of respondents, an opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner.
4. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks to contend that the petitioner was not diligent in availing the opportunity before the first respondent and as such, the prayer as made herein cannot be granted, I am of the opinion, since ultimately, the first respondent is to take an appropriate decision, based on the contentions to arrive at its conclusion and further keeping in view the fact that the very practice of the petitioner as a Professional is involved, the opportunity in any event is required to be granted to the petitioner.
5. In that light, the order dated 21.01.2017 impugned herein is set aside. The first respondent is directed to permit the petitioner herein to file the affidavit in response to the complaint and also as the evidence of the petitioner. Thereupon, the first respondent shall proceed further in the matter on providing opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant and also to tender the evidence of the petitioner herein. If the opportunity as granted is not availed by the petitioner within the reasonable time to be granted by the first respondent, the same shall stand forfeited and the petitioner cannot be heard to complain in that regard any further.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST