Dr Anil Kumar B N Vs M/S Father Muller Medical College

NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSIONER, (EARLIER MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA) POCKET - 14, SECTOR- 8, DWARKA PHASE - 1, NEW DELHI - 110 077. INDIA. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.RAJENDRA M. S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:13896 WP No. 27363 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT TO THE R-1 TO REFUND THE ENTIRE FEE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,08,921/(RUPEES SIXTEEN LAKHS EIGHT THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE ONLY) PENAL FEE AMOUNT FOR A SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS ONLY) AND STIPEND RS. 37,721.51/- (RUPEES THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY ONE AND PAISE FIFTY ONE ONLY) I.E., IN TOTAL A SUM OF RS. 22,23,021.51/- (RUPEES TWENTY TWO LAKHS TWENTY THREE THOUSAND TWENTY ONE RUPEES AND PAISE FIFTY ONE ONLY) TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH INTEREST AT 18 PERCENT P.A (FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,63,351.51/- ON 24.07.2014 TILL REALISATION) AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶25

W.P.No.27363/2024 filed by the petitioner,

¶26

seeking writ of mandamus against respondent No.1 for the refund of the fee paid by the petitioner, with interest.

¶27

W.P.No.36496/2016 is filed by the very same petitioner, seeking a direction to respondent No.1 for refund of the fee. The said W.P.No.36496/2016 was dismissed by this Court on 06.09.2016 for

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13896 WP No. 27363 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

non-prosecution. It is also to be noted that the petitioner

¶31

herein has filed an applications in I.A.Nos.1 and 2/2017 in W.P.No.36496/2016 seeking recall of the order dated 06.09.2016, which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2018. It is also to be noted that in W.P.No.36496/2016, the petitioner has again filed applications in I.A.Nos.1/2025 and 2/2025 seeking recall of the order dated 22.10.2018. Both the writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, seeking identical relief, despite the writ petition in W.P.No.36496/2016 having been dismissed.

¶32

It is also brought to the notice of the Court that in I.A.No.2/2025 in W.P.No.36496/2016, paragraph No.5 reads as under:

¶33

"5. I submit that to make good the above lapse on our end, I preferred another Writ Petition vide WP 27363/2024 (hereinafter the 'Second WP') on the same cause of action since the current proceedings were dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits. I submit that the Second WP came to be

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13896 WP No. 27363 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

listed for preliminary hearing on 19.11.2025 wherein this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant me liberty to prefer the instant application to recall the Impugned Order and tag it along with the Second WP. Hence, this application."

¶37

(underlined by me)

¶38

Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

¶39

Court in the case of the Sarguja Transport Services Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, reported in AIR 1987 SC 88, wherein the petitioner cannot file a second petition seeking the very same relief subsequently without seeking liberty, however looking into the order sheet in W.P.No.36496/2016, wherein the writ petition came to be dismissed in the first instance on 06.09.2016 and thereafter, the applications were filed to recall the said order, which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 22.10.2018.

¶40

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that

¶41

it is a clear case of abuse of the process of law by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13896 WP No. 27363 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- is imposed on the petitioner, payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from today.

¶45

It is also to be noted that the conduct of the petitioner, being a post graduate in Medicine, ought not to have ventured into such an illegal manner to filing an affidavit stating that liberty had been granted by this Court which is not found in the records.

¶46

In that view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed , for the reasons stated above.

¶47

The Registry is directed to send a copy of the

¶48

same to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority for

¶49

recovery of the cost.

¶50

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶51

KVR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Dr Anil Kumar B N v. M/S Father Muller Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Anil Kumar B N v. M/S Father Muller Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Association of Minority Professional Colleges Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Harsha H R Vs Union of India

Sri. Girish K Vs the Assistant Registrar

M/S Durga Facility Management Vs Union of India

Smt Niveditha Karkera Vs Axis Bank Ltd.

M/S Cha Engineering Construction Vs M/S Ia Accel Private Limited