IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.21868/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
E. PATHROSE, AGED 52 YEARS, AYURVEDIC DOCTOR, SANJEEVINI AYURVEDHA AND PANCHAKARMA CENTRE, KUSHALA NAGAR, MADIKERI-571234. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. R MADHUSUDHANA REDDY, ADV.- ABSENT) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NO.105, FIRST FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE REGISTRAR, THE KARNATAKA AYURVEDIC AND UNANI PRACTITIONER’S BOARD, AYUSH DIRECTORATE BUILDING, DHANVANTARI ROAD, BENGALURU-560009.
3. DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND FAMILY WELFARE, MADIKERI-571201, KODAGU DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. O. SHIVARAMA BHAT, ADV., FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DT.10.4.14, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE VIDE ANN-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioner.
Smt. Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Sri.
O. Shivarama Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following relief:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the letter No.H S/6/14-
15 dated 10.4.2014 issued by third respondent which is under challenge (Annexure-A);
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order, direction directing the first respondent to look into the representation dated 07/05/2014 vide Annexure-G given by the petitioner and the second respondent to look into the pending application for renewal applied on 25/02/2010 vide Annexure-D1 as per the procedure laid down in The Karnataka Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Siddha, Unani and Yoga Practitioners’ Registration and Medical Practitioners’ Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1961 and Rules made thereunder.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the issues involved in this petitioner is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of ‘Akhila Karnataka Ayurveda Siddha and Homeopathy & Ors.
vs. The Secretary Health and Family Welfare Dept. Government of Karnataka & Ors.’, ILR 2007 KAR 4069.
4. In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned in the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RD