Dr. a. a. Muralidharswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Dr. a. a. Muralidharswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; Respondent No. 2 directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 29.08.2025 at Annexure H and pass necessary orders thereon within sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, with the express clarification that the Court has not opined on the petitioner's entitlement to registration.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application dated 29.08.2025 for registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007, which had not been considered, must be considered by Respondent No. 2 and necessary orders passed thereon.

Court's answer

Every application for registration made under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 is required to be considered and necessary orders passed, either accepting or rejecting the application.

Ratio / Principle

If an order of rejection is passed on a registration application, it will have to be accompanied by reasons.

Key takeaways

This Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for such registration.obiter¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Dr. A. A. Muralidharswamy, practitioner at Sri Lakshmi Clinic, Modur, K.R Pete Taluk, Mandya District, whose application dated 29.08.2025 for registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 ('KPME Act') (Annexure-H) had not been considered. Held (Suraj Govindaraj, J.): any application for registration under the KPME Act must be considered and necessary orders passed, either accepting or rejecting it, and any order of rejection must be accompanied by reasons. Petition allowed; Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner and Chairman, Registration Committee for Karnataka Private Medical Establishments, Mandya District) directed to consider the Annexure-H application and pass necessary orders within sixty days; the Court expressly recorded that it expressed no opinion on the petitioner's entitlement to registration.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:51734 WP No. 35331 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 35331 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

DR. A. A. MURALIDHARSWAMY S/O. LATE A.V. ALWAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SRI LAKSHMI CLINIC, MODUR, BOOKANAKARE HOBLI, K.R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 426.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

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

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN OF REGISTRATION COMMITTEE FOR KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401

THE DISTRICT SECRETARY, DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51734 WP No. 35331 of 2025

HC-KAR

THE TALUK HEALTH OFFICER, K.R PETE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, K.R PETE TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SIDDARTH BABURAO, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION DATED 29.08.2025 FILING FOR REGISTRATION WITHOUT ANY CLARIFICATION FROM THE FOURTH RESPONDENT AND PLACE THE SAME BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts

notice for respondents.

2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

" a) To direct the 2nd respondent to accept the application dated 29.08.2025 filing for registration without any clarification from the fourth respondent and place the same before the second respondent, which is produced at Annexure-H.

b) To issue writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to place the application dated

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51734 WP No. 35331 of 2025

HC-KAR

29.08.2025 before second respondent Committee for registration under the provision of K.P.M.E. Act which is produced at Annexure-H;

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;

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

The short grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner having submitted an application for registration as a Medical Practitioner, the said application has not been considered and necessary orders passed.

Whenever any application for registration is made under Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 ('KPME Act'), it is required to be considered and necessary orders passed, either accepting or rejecting the said application.

Needless to say, if an order of rejection is passed, the same will have to be accompanied by reasons. Neither having been done, I pass the following:

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:51734 WP No. 35331 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed .

(ii) Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 29.08.2025 at Annexure H and pass necessary orders thereon within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for such registration.

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7