IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51120 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
K NINGARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A DOOR NO.77 WARD 30 NAGANAKATTE, RAMANAGARA-562159.
(By Mr. PRAKASH SHENOY P, ADV. (ABSENT)) AND:
1. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL (REP BY ITS PRESIDENT) PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560002.
2. DR I J PANKAJAKSHI W/O PARASHURAMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS VIVEKANANDA NAGAR B M ROAD RAMANAGARA-562159.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADV. FOR R1 DR. S V JOGA RAO ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT)) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEDICAL REPORT/ORDER DTD.5.12.2015 OF R-1 AS PER ANNEX- A AS THE SAME IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND IS PASSED WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY INVESTIGATION INTO THE CASE ON HAND AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Mr.Shivayogesha Shivayogimath, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. In this petition the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashment of the order dated 05.12.2015 passed by respondent No.1.
3. From the averments made in the petition, it is evident that the principal ground of challenge to the aforesaid order is that the order is a non speaking order and has been passed without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 was unable to point out from the record any reasons worth the name have been assigned by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.
4. In view of the well settled legal position facts of the case may be seen. In the instant case the relevant extract of the order is reproduced below:
‘On perusal of the case sheets, documents, cross-examinations of the parties, written arguments, it is made out that Dr.Pankajakshi has not maintained proper cases sheet of the patient in the Hospital. For not maintaining the proper case sheet, respondent is warned for professional misconduct. There is no medical negligence in regards management of patient.’ 5. Thus, it is evident that no reasons worth the name have been assigned by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order. The order is cryptic and suffers from the vice of non application of mind. It is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted to the Medical Council to pass an order afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.2 by assigning reasons if advised.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS