Dr Somashekar M C Vs the State of Karnataka

DR SOMASHEKAR M C S/O. CHIKKATHIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS UROLOGIST, SNR DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLAR-563 101, R/AT #1482, 17^TH C MAIN ROAD, 5^TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶11

DR. SADANANDA POOJARY, S/O. MAILLAPPA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS UROLOGIST, WENLOCK DISTRICT HOSPITAL, HAMPANKATTA, MANGALURU-575 001, Digitally signed by R/AT NO.301, HILL SIDE FERN, NANJUNDACHARI ESI ROAD, SHIVBAGH KADRI, Location: HIGH MANGALURU - 575 002. COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

DR. VISWANATHA R., S/O. LATE RAMA HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WORKING AS UROLOGIST, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, RAMANAGARA, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT-562 159, R/AT NO.89/1, 3^RD CROSS, SRIRAMAPURA MAIN ROAD, JAKKUR, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶13

DR. MAHANTESH TODAKAR, S/O. LATE GUDLEPPA TODAKAR,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22775-DB WP No. 12169 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS UROLOGIST/SENIOR SPECIALIST, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, BELAGAVI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, AMBEDKAR ROAD, NEAR CHANNAMMA CIRCLE, BELAGAVI - 590 001, R/AT B-901, UR CASA, KATTI APARTMENT, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI - 590 001.

¶17

DR. GAJANANA SREEPADA BHATTA, S/O. SHRIPAD SHIVARAM BHAT, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS UROLOGIST/SENIOR SPECIALIST, GENERAL HOSPITAL, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581 401, RESIDING AT “ATULYAM”, VIDYAGIRI, NEAR APMC YARD, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 402.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SATISH K., ADV.)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1-R3)

¶25

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22775-DB WP No. 12169 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

BANGALORE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS. 2211-2215/2026 (ANNEXURE-A); B) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.04.2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.2211-2215/2026 IN SO FAR AS REJECTION OF INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONERS IN APPLICATION NOS.2211-2215/2026 (ANNEXUREB), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶33

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the

¶34

order dated 09.04.2026 passed in Application Nos.2211– 2215/2026 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”), wherein notice has been issued to the respondents and the interim prayer has been directed to be considered.

¶35

It is pleaded that the petitioners are Government doctors

¶36

and are permitted to engage in private practice after the working hours of Government hospitals, subject to certain conditions and limitations. It is submitted that the impugned

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22775-DB WP No. 12169 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Government Order dated 28.01.2026, restricting private practice only to the Out-Patient Department and prohibiting inpatient treatment, is contrary to Rule 19 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 2021 (for short, “the 2021 Rules”).

¶40

Learned counsel, Sri K. Satish, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Government Order dated 28.01.2026 is contrary to Rule 19 of the 2021 Rules. It is contended that Rule 19 permits private practice in nursing homes/private hospitals outside duty hours without any distinction between out-patient treatment and in-patient treatment. Therefore, the impugned Government Order is without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that, since the Government Order is in violation of Rule 19 of the 2021 Rules, the Tribunal ought to have stayed the operation of the said Government Order, if not in its entirety, at least insofar as it is applicable to the petitioners herein.

¶41

Per contra , Sri Reauben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents, submits that the Government Order dated 28.01.2026 has been issued in

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22775-DB WP No. 12169 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

public interest as a matter of policy and that the same is in conformity with Rule 19 of the 2021 Rules. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the applications are listed before the Tribunal on 03.06.2026 and that the statement of objections on behalf of the State Government would be filed on or before the said date, and the matter would be argued as and when it is taken up by the Tribunal.

¶45

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General.

¶46

The petitioners have challenged the Government Order dated 28.01.2026, whereby Government doctors are restricted from treating in-patients in private hospitals. The preamble to the said Government Order indicates the reasons for imposing such restriction. The Tribunal has declined the interim prayer and has issued notice to the respondents.

¶47

Having regard to the nature of the interim prayer sought and the impugned Government Order dated 28.01.2026, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decision embodied in

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22775-DB WP No. 12169 of 2026

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the said Government Order is a policy decision affecting the public at large. Such a policy decision ought not to be interfered with by way of an interim order unless the Government is afforded an opportunity to file its objections. The Tribunal is, therefore, justified in issuing notice to the respondents.

¶51

In view of the interim prayer having already been declined by the Tribunal, and having regard to the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General that objections would be filed on or before 03.06.2026, consideration of the prayer for stay of operation of the Government Order dated 28.01.2026 at this stage is not warranted. However, in order to redress the grievance of the petitioners, the Tribunal may be requested to expedite the disposal of the applications, subject to the cooperation of both parties.

¶52

Accordingly, we pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

(i) The writ petition is rejected .

¶55

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22775-DB WP No. 12169 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(ii) The respondent-State shall file statement of objections on or before 3^rd June 2026 or reasonable time to be extended by the Tribunal.

¶58

(iii) If pleadings are complete by both the parties, the Tribunal is requested to expedite disposal of the above application.

¶59

(iv) The observations made in this order are only for disposal of the writ petition and will not have any bearing on the contentions to be urged by both the parties.

¶60

(v) No orders as to costs.

¶61

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶62

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶63

MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49

Dr Somashekar M C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Somashekar M C v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs M/S Corporation Bank

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vs M/S Essem 18 Construction

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Central Tax and Anr, Vs M/S Chimney Hills Education Society

Smt H S Prema Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumara, Vs Radha