IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26047 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR. N. HANUMANTHARAJU S/O V. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O RAKESH CLINIC BADAKEGUDLU VILLAGE KANDHIKERE POST C.N.HALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 102 (BY SRI. B. K. MANJUNATH, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-571 201 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & CHAIRMAN OF REGISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-571 201 3. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER TUMKUR-571 201 … PETITIONER 4. THE DISTRICT SECRETARY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-571 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 26.04.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF HIS MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE PETITIONERS MEDICAL PRACTICE AS HIS MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS TILL THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER IS CONSIDERED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. B. K. Manjunath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Y. D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner dated 26.04.2017 vide Annexure-B for registration of his medical establishment.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application dated 26.04.2017 filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that the application filed by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the application filed by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-