IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.18958/2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M. MUNIRAJU, S/O MUKUNDAPPA, C/O BYRAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.47/2, SWASTI MAIN ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027.
... PETITIONER AND:
(BY SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P. H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE) 1. DR. S. MUTHU, ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEON, MAJOR, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, M/S MALLIGE MEDICAL CENTRE, 31/32, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
2. DR. MAHESH KUKREJA, S/O NARAYANDAS KUKREJA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, EMBASSY APARTMENTS, ADJACENT TO MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE-560052.
3. M/S. MALLIGE MEDICAL CENTRE, 31/32, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
4. KARNATAKA MEDICAL COUNCIL, NO.70, 2ND FLOOR, VAIDYAKEEYA BHAWAN, K.R. ROAD, NEAR BASAVANAGUDI POST OFFICE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KRISHNAMURTHY K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3, SRI VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVCOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANN-P DT.22.8.13, PASSED BY THE R4, AUTHORITY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO IMPOSING PUNISHMENT OF WARNING AS AGAINST THE R1 AND EXONERATING THE R3 FROM THE CHARGES LEVELLED, DIRECT THE R4 TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE R1 & R2 & ALSO TO DISQUALIFY THEM FROM PRACTISING MEDICAL PROFESSION & TO PASS AN ORDER TO CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF THE R3 HOSPITAL & STOP THEM FROM RUNNING THE HOSPITAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Yogesh V. Kotemath, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Krishnamurthy K. R., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Sri Vinay D. Hosmath, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. With the consent of the parties, the petition is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 22.8.2013 passed by the respondent No.4.
4. When the matter was taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner has the remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and the petitioner be granted the liberty to file an appeal.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the aforesaid order. Needless to state that in case the petitioner files an appeal against the aforesaid order within a period of one month from today, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law by a speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of filing of such appeal, after affording an opportunity or hearing to the parties.
6. Accordingly the petition is disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE MD