IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.31273/2018 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN:
DR JEFFREY PRADEEP RAJ S/O MR V RAJENDRAN, AGED 28 YEARS, R/AT A-009, SVS PALMS-2 APARTMENTS,CHINNAPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, CHINNAPPANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560037 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. DORE RAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ST. JOHN’S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, SARJAPUR, BENGALURU-560034 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR) 2. RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES 4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041 (REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR) 3. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POCKET -14, SECTOR-8, DWARAKA, PHASE-I.
NEW DELHI-110007 (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA OFFICE OF THE STATE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY AT NO.55, 2ND FLOOR, KARNATAKA, SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD BUILDING, "ABHAYA SANKEERNA" BENGALURU-560020 (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER) 5. DR DENIS XAVIER AGE: MAJOR PROFESSOR & EX-HOD, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560034 6. DR. ATIYA FARUQUI AGE: MAJOR ASSOCIATE PREFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACOLOGY, ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560034 7. MRS NANDINI MATHUR AGE: MAJOR SENIOR CO-ORDINATOR DIVISION OF CLINICAL RESEARCH & TRAINING ST.JOHNS RESEARCH INSTITUTE BANGALORE-560034 8. DR MARJORIE CORREA AGE: MAJOR PROFESSOR & REGISTRAR, ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560034 9. DR.TONY D.S.RAJ AGE: MAJOR THE DEAN, ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560034 10. DR GEORGE D SOUZA AGE: MAJOR THE DEAN, ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560034 11. DR JAYANTHI SAVIO AGE: MAJOR MEMBER SECRETARY, INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE, ST.JOHNS MEDICAL COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560034 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, DIRECT OF THE LIKE NATURE TO THE R-1 HEREIN TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO COMPLETE THE "TURMACIN" RESEARCH PROJECT TO ITS LOGICAL END AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In his bulky pleadings, petitioner who claims to be a differently abled person has sought for the following prayers which are marked by their plurality.
“b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction of the like nature to the 1st Respondents herein to permit the petitioner to complete the “TURMACIN” research project to its logical end;
(c ) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction of the like nature to the 1st respondents to permit the petitioner to access all the infrastructure, Research Institute, Hospital and Patients of the 1st respondent.
(d) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction of the like nature to the 4th the state of Karnataka, Office of the State Commissioner for persons with disability to take necessary actions against the 1st Respondent with respect complaint dtd:2.7.2018 [Annexure-A].
(e) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction of the like nature to the 2nd respondent to take necessary actions against the 1st respondent with respect complaints dtd:11.7.2018 copy of the same is produced as Annexures-B and C.
(f) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction of the like nature to the 3rd respondent to take necessary actions against the 1st respondent with respect email complaints dtd:13.7.2018 copy of the same is produced as Annexures-D and E;
(g) Grant cost of the Writ petition;
(h) Pass any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant, under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice”.
2. After service of notice, the 1st respondent- institution assertedly unaided by the State has entered appearance through its advocate; the 2nd respondent- University is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel Shri N.K.Ramesh; the 3rd respondent-MCI is represented by its Sr. Panel Counsel Shri N.Khetty; the 4th respondent-State is represented by the AGA Smt. Pramodini Kishan. The other private respondents are not issued notice since they are neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of this writ petition.
3. Learned Sr. Advocate Shri S.N.Murthy appearing for the 1st respondent-institution submits that the aforesaid prayers (b) & (c) cannot be granted against the said institution which being fully self-financed and State Unaided, does not fall within the expression ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This submission has force inasmuch as the said institution does not have any of the ingredients that fits into the expression ‘other authorities’ as interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of R.D.SHETTY vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
4. The other prayers at (d), (e) and (f) above, relate to grievance of the petitioner as to non-consideration of his several complaints, copies whereof are produced as Annexures-A to E. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the 4th respondent-State has to itself consider or cause them to be considered by the appropriate authority; this public duty having not been discharged there being absolutely no justification whatsoever for keeping the complaints pending, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of writ court.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that there would be no much difficulty in considering the complaints of the petitioner if the same are sent to the jurisdictional authorities, along with all supportive material. She points out that the so called complaints at Annexures-A to E have not been addressed to any of the State authorities. This Court is not sure if the complaint at Annexure-D addressed to ‘The Concerned authorities of MCI” can be treated by the MCI since it is in connection with the alleged discrimination, harassment and financial fraud.
6. Learned Sr. Advocate Shri S.N.Murthy apprises the Court of a relevant fact of recent development, namely, the petitioner having left the 1st respondent-institution has joined some institution at Mumbai and that he has accordingly addressed a letter too to the management of the institution; in view of this changed circumstance, there is no need to continue the interim order granted by this Court earlier, adds the counsel. There is force in this submission which is not much controverted by the petitioner’s side.
7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the 4th respondent-State to consider or cause to be considered, the representation/complaint, if filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, with the participation of the petitioner.
Interim order granted earlier stands dissolved. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/