IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38810 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M.K. BALAKRISHNAN S/O LATE SRI KUNHAMBUPANICKAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.10-160/5 PRASHATHI ROAD SHAKTHI NAGAR MANGALORE – 575016. … PETITIONER (By Mr.PRADEEP NAIK K. ADV.,) AND:
THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA AYURVEDIC AND UNANAI PRACTIONERS BOARD AYUSH DIRECTORATE BUILDING DHANVANTHRI ROAD BENGALURU – 560009. … RESPONDENT (By Mr. O. SHVIARAM BHAT) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEX-A DTD. 7.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Pradeep Naik.K, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.O.Shivaram Bhat, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
a). To issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Annexure ‘A’ dated 07.04.2016 in No. AUB/01(A) /2016-17 issued by the Respondent.
b). Issue any other Writ/s direction/s order/s as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the registration certificate of the petitioner as a medical practitioner has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 07.04.2016 without even issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the aforesaid fact that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner.
5. In view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Needless to state that the respondent shall be at liberty to take decision against the petitioner if so advised in accordance with law.
Accordingly, with the aforesaid liberty the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS