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.56626/2016 (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, 48 YEARS, 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;
NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS NOT NECESSARY) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN ANNEXURE-A, ENQUIRY, REF NO.KMC/ENQ 36 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri B.V.Krishna, learned counsel who has entered appearance for respondent No.2 in a petition relating to the same subject matter accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2 herein. He is permitted to file vakalath in the Registry in four weeks. The need to notify the remaining respondents does not arise in the instant petition.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the entire proceedings initiated through Enquiry Ref. No.KMC/ENQ.36/2015 on the file of the first respondent. The petitioner is a Senior Medical Officer and a reputed Surgeon in Mangaluru. In that regard, it is contended that despite there being no cause to initiate such action against the petitioner, the same has been initiated after several years and as such, the very initiation of the proceedings by the first respondent on accepting such complaint is not justified. In that light, the petitioner seeks that the proceedings be quashed as there is no reason to allow the proceedings to go on before the first respondent.
3. Having taken note of the contention putforth, at the outset, it is to be noticed that the enquiry was initiated in the year 2015 and the petitioner having appeared in the said proceedings has taken part therein.
If that be the position, the petitioner could urge all contentions before the first respondent including the contention that a complaint of the present nature filed belatedly is not maintainable. If such contentions are putforth, in any event, the first respondent would take note of the contentions urged and arrive at a conclusion.
4. Therefore, at this stage, in a matter of the present nature, I see no reason to quash the proceedings. However, all contentions are left open to be urged before the first respondent and if any grievance arises thereafter towards the same, the same shall be urged in an appropriate proceedings.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST