Disposed

Dr Venkatesh B v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2022WP/9296/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order disposing Writ Petition No.9296 of 2021 seeking directions for registration of an Alternative System practitioner without clarification. Court directs registration application be considered within three months and medical practice must not be interfered with pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd Respondent to consider application within three months; no interference with petitioner's practice pending decision.

Dr Venkatesh B Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 9296 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9296 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. VENKATESH B., S/O BHIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, ”JEEVAN CLINIC”, CHINDENAHALLI GATE, GANDSI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 119.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK N R.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF REGISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶15

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 9296 of 2021

¶18

HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶19

THE DISTRICT SECRETARY, DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573 201.

¶20

THE TALUK HEALTH OFFICER, HASSAN GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, ARSIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 571 501.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SMT.SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶23

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION DATED 15.04.2021 FILING FOR REGISTRATION WITHOUT ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THE FOURTH RESPONDENT AND PLACE THE SAME BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶27

prayer:

¶28

"a) To direct the 2nd respondent to accept the application in No.11113 dated 15.04.2021 filing for registration without any clarification from the

¶29

¶30

WP No. 9296 of 2021

¶31

fourth respondent and place the same before the second respondent, which is produced at AnnexureF .

¶32

b) To issue writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to place the application in No.11113 dated 15.04.2021 before second respondent Committee for registration under the provision of K.P.M.E. Act which is produced at Annexure-F ;

¶33

c) To issue direction to the respondents not to interfere in practice of Alternative System of Medicine by the petitioner as per the Registration Certificate issued by the concerned authorities;

¶34

d) To call for records and grant such other relief/s deems fit by this Hon'ble court."

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶36

issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.18191/2022 disposed of on 14.09.2022 which followed an order passed in W.P.No.22737/2021.

¶37

The Co-ordinate Bench, in W.P.No.22737/2021, has

¶38

held as follows:

¶39

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits and learned AGA does not much dispute that the subject matter of this writ petition is substantially covered by a Coordinate Bench decision dated 31.01.2017 in W.P.No.62158/2016 (GM-RES) between DR. RAJAPPA YAMANAPPA MALAGI Vs. THE STATE

¶40

OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS .

¶41

¶42

WP No. 9296 of 2021

¶43

2. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that the Court should treat the like-cases alike and if relief is granted to a litigant it has to be extended to a similarly circumstanced litigant as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶44

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the second respondent to consider the subject application of the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with law.

¶45

All contentions are kept open.

¶46

Maximum period for compliance is three months.

¶47

Till a decision is taken on the subject application, petitioner’s practice of Medicine shall not be interfered with.

¶48

No costs.”

¶49

In the light of the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) , the petition is disposed with a time limit of three months for considering the petitioner’s application

¶50

¶51

WP No. 9296 of 2021

¶52

in accordance with law. Till such a decision is taken, the petitioner’s medical practice shall not be interfered with.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Dr Venkatesh B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Venkatesh B v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.G.Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Ramu Vs Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank

Sri Gafar Ahmed Vs the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Dr Sreenivas S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K.M. Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Ramesh Kashiram Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka