IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.45288/2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. MAHESH KUKREJA NARAYANDAS, S/O NARAYANDAS KUKREJA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.2025, EMBASSY APARTMENTS, ADJACENT TO MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052 .
AND:
... PETITIONER (BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY K.R., ADVOCATE) 1. THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL, # 70, II FLOOR, VAIDYAKEEYA BHAVANA, K.R. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004.
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
2. M. MUNIRAJ, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR, C/O SRI BYRAREDDY, NO.47/2, SWASTI MAIN ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560027.
3. DR. S. MUTHU, MAJOR, ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, C/O M/S. MALLIGE MEDICAL CENTRE, 31/32, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, C/O M/S. MALLIGE MEDICAL CENTRE, 31/32, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P. H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, R-3 AND R-4 SERVER AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL AT ANNX-A DATED 22.8.2013 IN REF.NO.KMC/ ENQ/36/2010, CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R-1 RELATING TO THE REF.NO.KMC/ENQ/36/2010.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Krishnamurthy K. R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Vinay D. Hosmath, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Sri Yogesh V. Kotemath, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. With consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the Karnataka Medical Council, by which the name of the petitioner has been directed to be erased from the Medical Registry for a period of one year from the date of the said order.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Section 24 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and the petitioner be granted liberty to take recourse to the remedy of appeal, as provided under Section 24 of the Act.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petitioner is granted the liberty to file an appeal under Section 24 of the Act, within a period of one month from today. Needless to state that in case such an appeal is filed, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal. Till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, the ad-interim order granted by a Bench of this Court dated 8.10.2013, shall continue. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE MD