Dismissed

Dr Mohan Bhatta M R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023WP/57797/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an endorsement rejecting the petitioner's application for registration of an alternative medicine clinic. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to meet statutory prerequisites under Section 2(k) of KPME Act despite another applicant's successful registration and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed for failing to establish compliance with statutory registration prerequisites.

Dr Mohan Bhatta M R Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 57797 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 57797 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DR. MOHAN BHATTA M.R., S/O RAMAKRISHNA BHATTA M., SRI SKANDA CHIKITSALAYA, 14, GROUND FLOOR, BHOO VARAHA COMPLEX, VADIRAJA ROAD, UDUPI-576101 R/AT SRI. ANANTHA NILAYA, 25-35 A1, MOODABETTU KODAVOOR, KRODASHRAMA, UDUPI-576101

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGAR, ADVOCATE & SRI. GOVINDARAJU K. JOISA.,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMANOF REGISTRATION, COMMITTEE FOR KARNATAKA, PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.

¶13

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, UDUPI DISTRICT,UDUPI-576101.

¶15

¶16

WP No. 57797 of 2018

¶17

THE DISTRICT SECRETARY, DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 & R5, SRI. N. KHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.12.2018 (ANNEXURE-P) ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGISTRATION OF CLINIC IN RESPECT OF PRACTICE IN ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R-2 TO 5 AUTHORITIES PASS THE ORDER ON THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION FILED BY HIM AS PER SECTION 5 OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT; FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN PRACTICE OF THE PETITIONER AS PER THE PROVISO OF SECTION 3 OF KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging impugned endorsement dated 06.12.2018 bearing No.JiAaKuKa:KhaVySanA:96:2018-19, vide Annexure - P issued by respondent no.2 rejecting petitioner's application for registration of clinic in respect of practice in alternative medicine, this writ petition is filed.

¶24

Sri Rajesh Shettigar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that after completion of B.Sc., petitioner joined Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta (' IBAM ' for short) for Post Graduation Diploma Course in Alternative

¶25

¶26

WP No. 57797 of 2018

¶27

Medicines (' PGD-AM ' for short). After he passed it, he was issued with certificate and marks card. Copies of diploma certificate and marks card are produced as Annexures-B & C. Thereafter, he got registered with IBAM and certificate of registration - Annexure-D obtained.

¶28

Subsequently, petitioner also claims to have completed his M.D. from IBAM and issued with certificate and marks card as per Annexure- E and F. Thereafter, petitioner started practice and opening clinic by name 'Sri Skanda Chikitsalaya', at Udupi, in leased premises and filed application on 03.06.2010 under Section 5 of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (' KPME Act ' for short) as per Annexure-H.

¶29

In pursuance of said application, he was called upon to submit registration certificate as per notices dated 19.5.2011, 22.11.2011 and 07.12.2011. Though petitioner replied to same, without consideration, impugned endorsement came to be issued on 06.12.2018. Assailing same, petitioner filed this petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that in similar circumstances, wherein another applicant, who had

¶31

¶32

WP No. 57797 of 2018

¶33

obtained certificate issued by IBAM, filed application for registration, which was rejected, preferred W.P.no.12345/2014, disposed of on 21.04.2014 and this Court had directed respondent Board to consider his application. In pursuance of same, certificate of registration - Annexure-M was issued. However, petitioner was discriminated. Hence, sought for allowing petition.

¶34

On other hand, learned HCGP appearing for respondent sought to justify impugned endorsement. It was submitted that as per Rule 5(IX)(b) of KPME Rules, possession of registration certificate issued by State Medical Council etc.

¶35

was mandatory. Section 6 of KPME Act prescribed following pre-requisites:

¶36

"6. Pre-requisites for Registration of Private Medical Establishments:

¶37

The Registration Authority shall before granting the registration consider whether the following prerequisites for registration of a Private Medical Establishment are satisfied, namely:-

¶38

(i) that the premises housing the Private Medical Establishment is located in hygienic surroundings and otherwise suitable for the purpose for which it is established or sought to be established;

¶39

(ii) that the Private Medical Establishment is adequately staffed with qualified doctors, qualified and trained para medical personnel;

¶40

(iii) that the Private Medical Establishment has the necessary buildings with adequate space for performing its various functions, equipments and other infrastructure facilities;

¶41

¶42

WP No. 57797 of 2018

¶43

(iv) that the Private Medical Establishment conforms to the standards referred to in Section 9;

¶44

(v) such other factors as may be prescribed.

¶45

Clause (ii) mandates that Medical Establishments are

¶46

adequately staffed with qualified doctors, qualified and trained para medical personnel etc. It was submitted that qualification referred to would be as per definition of 'Medical Practitioner' under Section 2(k) of KPME Act. Since petitioner has failed to produce any such registration certificate, impugned endorsement was issued and same was justified.

¶47

Heard learned counsel.

¶48

From above submission, only ground on which petitioner is seeking for quashing of impugned endorsement is discrimination, relying upon direction issued by this Court in W.P.no.12345/2014.

¶49

On perusal of said order, it is seen that when application filed for registration was not being considered, applicant therein approached this Court, wherein direction was issued to consider his application without expressing any opinion on merits.

¶50

Though, subsequently registration certificate is stated to be issued, same would not enure to benefit of

¶51

6 - WP No. 57797 of 2018

¶52

petitioner herein unless it is shown that his qualification is as prescribed in Section 2(k) of KPME Act. Said view is supported by earlier decisions of this Court in case of Dr. Basavaraja Yellappa Kalgudi Vs. The Karnataka Ayurvedic & Unani Practitioners Board¹ and in Akhila Karnataka Ayurveda Siddha and Homeopathy and Others Vs. The Secretary Health and Family Welfare Dept Govt. of Karnataka and Others² .

¶53

Without establishing same, merely on ground that registration certificate was issued to someone else, petitioner cannot seek for issuance of direction by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. It is settled law that there cannot be enforcement of negative equality in writ jurisdiction.

¶54

Under above circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or any good ground to interfere with impugned endorsement.

¶55

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Psg*

¶58

1 ILR 2004 KAR 3140

¶59

2 ILR 2007 KAR 4069

Dr Mohan Bhatta M R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mohan Bhatta M R v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P Gopinath Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Sri G C Thipperudrappa Vs Smt Lakshmidevi

Sri Neelakanta Cold Storage Private Limited Vs the Union Bank of India

The Registrar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri U Keshava Vs Smt Janamma Widow of Late U Shama