IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51893 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR N LOKESH S/O S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SRI. VENKATESHWARA ALTERNATIVE CLINIC, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, MANDIPET, TUMAKURU-572126. … PETITIONER (By Mr. VINAY A, ADV. FOR M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF REGISTRATION COMMITTEE, FOR KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572126.
3. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572126.
4. THE SECRETARY INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572126.
5. THE DISTRICT SECRETARY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572126. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. Y D HARSHA LEARNED AGA) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the endorsement dated 03.08.2016 issued by R-3 vide Annex-F and the endorsement dated 02.09.2016 issued by R-5 vide Annex-H; and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Vinay A., learned counsel for Sri.M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a direction to quash the endorsement dated 03.08.2016 issued by respondent No.3 as well as writ of mandamus to place the application filed by the petitioner dated 08.07.2016 before the Registration Authority, that is respondent No.2.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned Additional Government Advocate, while inviting the attention of this Court to the definition of ‘medical practitioner’ contained in the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), submitted that the petitioner is required to get himself registered either under the provisions of the Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1961), Ayurvedia, Naturopathy, Sidda, Unani or Yoga Practitioners Registration and Medical Practitioners Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 9 of 1962), Medical Registration Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 34 of 1961), India Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 (Central Act 59 of 1973) and Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act 102 of 1956) to practice the system of medicine which he has studied, qualified and registered and includes a Dentist registered under the Dentists Act, 1948 (Central Act 16 of 1948) and thereafter, if he submits an application for registration of medical practitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit an application for registration as a medical practitioner as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act before the competent authority and the aforesaid authority be directed to consider the application in accordance with law and thereafter, the petitioner be granted liberty to submit his application for opening a clinic.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case the petitioner files an application for registration as a medical practitioner before the competent authority, the aforesaid authority shall decide the application submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Thereafter, when the petitioner is registered as medical practitioner, he is at liberty for opening a clinic which shall be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law expeditiously.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV