IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.8067/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
DR.S.R.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE S.G.RAMALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS B.H.ROAD, K.B.CROSS TIPTUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 114.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.M.AKSHAY, ADV., FOR SRI.B.K.MANJUNATH, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 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 & FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 571 201.
4. THE DISTRICT SECRETARY DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR 571 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.B.SATYANARAYAN SINGH, 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-D & D1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF HIS MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN TIME BOUND PERIOD AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this court seeking issue of mandamus to consider the application filed by the petitioner at Annexures D and D1 for registration of his medical establishment. The petitioner in that light is seeking that the respondents be directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s practice in his medical establishment. The petitioner has made an application as required under the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 and Form-A as provided under Rule 6(1) has also been filed. Since the same has not been considered by the respondents and since the petitioner contends that there is interference in his practice, the petitioner is before this court seeking consideration of the application.
3. The learned Government Advocate who has secured instructions in the matter has referred to the endorsement dated 18.12.2017 whereunder the application of the petitioner has been considered. The petitioner has been informed that if the application is uploaded online, the same would be taken note and be placed before the second respondent for consideration.
4. In that view of the matter, the mandamus as sought in this petition at this juncture, would not arise. However the petitioner having taken note of the endorsement, shall file his application online by paying the requisite fee in that regard.
5. If such application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be taken note and be placed before the second respondent for consideration. The second respondent shall take a decision on the same within three weeks from the date of production of application before him.
6. In the meanwhile, if, as on today, the petitioner is practicing, there shall be no interference till the application is considered and disposed of by the second respondent.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE Bsv