IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.23626 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. KULKARNI P.N., REGISTERED INTEGRATED MEDICAL PRACTITIONER REG. CERTIFICATE NO.1730, KAUP BOARD, PRESENTLY WORKING AT ASHWINI HOSPITAL MADIKERI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.R. DEEPAK, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT 2 THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT 3 THE DIRECTOR AYUSH DEPARTMENT ANANDARAO CIRCLE BANGALORE 4 DR. MOHAM APPAJI S/O. LATE. K.N. APPAJI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT ‘NISHA NILAYA’, BLOCK NO.14, SUBRAMANYANAGAR MADIKERI – 571 201 ...RESPONDENTS [BY SRI. B. BALAKRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R3] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.04.2018 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN ENQ/09/2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE- B;
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. B.R. Deepak, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B. Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2; Mr.
S. Basavaraj, learned Counsel for Respondent No.4.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.04.2018, by which licence of the petitioner to practice medicine has been suspended.
3. The petitioner claims to be a registered Integrated Medical Practitioner as defined under the Karnataka Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Siddha, Unani and Yoga Practitioners’ Registration and Medical Practitioners’ Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961. It is the case of the petitioner that being an Integrated Medical Practitioner, he is entitled to practice Allopathy.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he administered some treatment to one patient who expired. Thereupon, the District Health Officer, by the impugned order dated 12.04.2018, has unilaterally suspended the licence of the petitioner to practice Medicine. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. Sri. B. Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate, does not fairly dispute the submission that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 submitted that Integrated Medical Practitioner cannot practice Allopathy in view of the well settled legal position which has been laid down by catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘POONAM VERMA vs. ASHWIN PATEL AND OTHERS’ reported in [1996] 4 SCC 332 and in the case of ‘DR. A.K. SABHAPATHY vs. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS’ reported in 1992 SUPP [3] SCC 147.
8. Be that as it may, since the impugned order dated 12.04.2018 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
9. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 is granted liberty to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised. Needless to state that Respondent No.2 shall also be at liberty to determine the question as to whether or not the petitioner being the Integrated Medical Practitioner is entitled to practice Allopathy and in the proceedings before the Respondent No.2, Respondent No.4 shall also be permitted to participate in the proceedings. Let the aforesaid proceedings be concluded within a period of two months from today.
10. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and hence the same is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-