IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.37279-282 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. DR. KALYANAKUMARSWAMI KARADI S/O ISHWARAYYA KARADI, AGE 44 YEARS R/A SHREE VAGEESH CLINIC B H ROAD KADADKATTE BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA-577301.
2. DR. T S BHARDWAJAN S/O K SRINIVASAIAH AGE:68 YEARS R/A NO.946, 8TH MAIN SHIVARATRESHWAR NAGAR MYSURU-570023.
3. DR. BHAGYALAKHMI D/O P V MURTHY AGE: 60 YRS R/A NO.986 SHIVARATRESHWAR NAGAR MYSURU-570023.
4. DR RAJASHEKHAR BHUSANURMATH S/O GANGADHARASWAMY AGE: 43 YEARS R/A SWAMY RESIDENCY NO.6 & 7 KONAPANNA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY POST HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560100.
… PETITIONERS (By Mr. S.R. DODAWAD, ADV., FOR Mr. ADITYA SINGH, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE KARNATAKA AYURVEDIC AND UNANI PRACTITIONER BOARD DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH BUILDING DHANAVANTHRI ROAD, BENGALURU-09 REP BY ITS REGISTRAR.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y.D. HARSHA, LEARNED AGA FOR R1 Mr. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADV., FOR R2) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD.5.5.2016 ISSUED BY R-1 GAZETTED ON 6.5.2016 AT ANNEX-K. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DTD.5.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 GAZETTED ON 6.5.2016 AT ANNEX-K & ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. S.R.Dodawad, learned counsel for Sri.Aditya Singh Learned Counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Sri.O.Shivarama Bhat Learned Couasel for the respondent No.2.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of notification dated 05.05.2016 by which Rule 57 of The Karnataka Ayurvedic, Unani Practitioners Registration and Medical Practitioners Miscellaneous Provisions Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ for short) has been amended. In order to appreciate the petitioners challenge few relevant facts need mention which are stated infra:
4. The petitioners are graduates and post graduates in the system of Ayurvedic Medicine and are registered with respondent No.2-Board as lifetime members. By a notification dated 05.05.2016, Rule 57 of the Rules was amended and online Biometric Refreshing Registration Fee was prescribed, which was quantified at Rs.1000/-. Being aggrieved the petitioners have approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Siddha, Unani and Yoga Practitioners Registration and Medical Practitioners Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) submitted that in view of aforesaid provision, no renewal fee can be recovered from the petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that no renewal fee for registration is being recovered from the petitioners but Online Biometric Refreshing Registration Fee is being recovered and cards will be issued to the petitioners.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. A Bench of this Court by an order dated 31.10.2015 passed in W.P.Nos.36787-790/2015 held that in the absence of any provision, Online Biometric Refreshing Registration Fee cannot be recovered. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment by a notification dated 05.05.2016, rule 57 of the Rules has been amended and the provision has been made for Online Biometric Refreshing Registration Fee. On payment of the aforesaid fee, a card will be issued to the petitioners. The aforesaid provision has been made by the respondents to ensure that the genuine persons practice as medical practitioners. The amount, which is sought to be recovered under rule 57 of the Rules is not a renewal fee. Therefore, Section 19(1) of the Act has no application to the fact situation of the case. In the result, I do not find any merit in the petitions. The same fails, and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS