IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.18529/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. H.L.VISHWANATH, S/O.LAKSHMANACHAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT:LAKSHMAN CLINIC TEMPLE ROAD, MALLIPATNA, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.S.HOSMATH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.
3. THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201.
4. AYUSH BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009.
5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALLIPATNA, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 130.
6. THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, BY ITS SECRETARY, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R.B.SATYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R1, R3, R4 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 AND 6 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO REGISTER PETITIONER’S CLINIC AS REQUIRED UNDER THE KPME ACT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 6 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. The need to notify the remaining respondents in this petition does not arise, keeping in view the nature of consideration.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.3 and 6 to consider the application of the petitioner seeking registration of the petitioner’s clinic under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act (‘KPME Act’ for short).
3. The petitioner, who claims to be a practitioner in Ayurvedic system of medicine has filed the application seeking registration under the KPME Act. Since according to the petitioner, the same has not been considered, he is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus.
4. As evident, the application has been filed only on 24.04.2017. The learned Government Advocate would bring to the notice of this Court that, at an earlier point, the consideration has been made by the Karnataka Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioner’s Board. Though that be the position, when the application has been filed presently under the KPME Act, the Competent Authority will have to take note of the same and take a decision and if any order passed earlier acts as an impediment to consider the application, the details of the same shall also be furnished to the petitioner.
5. In that view, all that is necessary to be directed herein is to take note of the application filed by the petitioner, take a decision in accordance with law and convey the same to the petitioner.
6. To enable such consideration, the petitioner shall now file one more copy of the application with respondent No.3, who shall take note of the same and if need be, place it before the respondent No.6 for taking a decision in the matter. The decision shall be taken one way or the other in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Until such decision is taken by respondent No.6, the status relating to the clinic said to have been established by the petitioner if is being run as on today shall be permitted.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST