The National Integrated Medical Association Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6841 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NATIONAL INTEGRATED MEDICAL ASSOCIATION BENGALURU REP BY ITS PRESIDENT DR. RJAJASHEKHAR BHUSANURAMATH S/O LATE GANGADHARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O SWAMY RESIDENCY NO.6 AND 7 95/2 B3 KONAPPANA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY POST HOSUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESH SHIVAYOGIMATH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR AYUSH, DHANWANTRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL QUASH SECTION 4(d) OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 1/2018 DATED 06.01.2018 ISSUED BY R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND ETC.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner-Association which is a registered public trust

¶24

claiming to have been established on 13.04.1948 being in existence for over 76 years is before this Court seeking following reliefs:

¶25

''(a) Issue a writ or order or direction writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing Section 4 (d) of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments, Act 1/2018 dated 6.1.2018, issued by Respondent no.1, vide Annexure-S.

¶26

(b) Issue a writ or order or direction writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing Rule 7C(1)(a) and 7C(2)(b) of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments (Amendment) Rules, 2018, in No.HFW11FDR2018, Bengaluru dated 27.03.2018 issued by Respondent no.1, vide Annexure-W.

¶27

c) Issue a writ or order or direction writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent no.1 to insert the word 'NIMA' instead of 'one more association' in Section 4 (d) of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments, Act 1/2018 dated 6.1.2018, vide Annexure-S.

¶28

d) Issue a writ or order or direction writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent no.1 to insert the word 'NIMA' instead of 'one more association' in Rule 7 C (1) (a) and 7 C (2) (b) of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments, (Amendment) Rules, 2018, issued by Respondent no.1, vide Annexure-W.

¶29

e) Pass such any other orders as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.''

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner arose in view of a notification dated 06.01.2018 issued by the respondent-State proposing to amend the provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2007') by substituting names of the members to be nominated to the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority. He submits that the amendment sought to be effected to Section 4 of the Act, 2007, in addition to others, specifically refers to mentioning of one member each from the Indian Medical Association and ''one more association''. He submits that the only short grievance of the petitioner is that when the respondent-State has specifically referred to a member from ''Indian Medical Association'', it ought to have specified the name of other association and the petitionerAssociation being the oldest association in existence since 1948 catering to the requirement of practitioners of Indian System of Medicine, was more eligible or entitled to be named in the said section. He submits that specific reference to 'Indian Medical Association' has caused deliberate discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

He submits on earlier occasion, challenge to very Section 4 was mounted before this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.4508/2010 by the President of the petitioner herein. This Court disposed off the said writ petition relegating the matter to the respondent-State to address the grievance of the petitioner. Yet the respondent-Authorities have not taken any steps, instead have proceeded to issue the impugned notification further prejudicing the cause of the petitioner.

¶38

He refers to notification dated 27.03.2018 produced at Annexure-W, which are the draft rules published by the respondent-State, specifically providing the qualification of the association to be the members of the 'Redressal Authority'. Referring to Rules 7C(a), 7C(1)(a) and 7C(2)(b), he submits that the yardstick prescribed thereunder is discriminative and does not purport to achieve the object sought to be achieved. On these grounds seeks for quashing of the notification.

¶39

In response, learned AGA submits that the earlier challenge made by the petitioner to very Section 4 of the Act has been negated by this Court and the petitioner has not carried the matter further and the same has attained finality.

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Therefore, the Registration Authority even as contemplated under un-amended Section 4 of the Act indeed included President/Secretary of Indian Medical Association of the concerned District as one of the members of the Registration Authority. She further submits all that by the amendment sought to be done is to expand the scope and strength of the Registration Authority vesting in it powers to redress the grievance of the members. In that, in addition to President/Secretary of Indian Medical Association, a provision is also provided to include another association. There is no discrimination of any nature whatsoever as alleged. She submits that petitioner-Association may also seek to be appointed/nominated in the slot provided under ''One more association'' of the provision. Therefore, she submits there is no substance in the petition.

¶44

As regards, Annexure-W, a Notification dated 27.03.2018, she submits that Rules only provides for a qualification of the Association to be nominated as Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority and if the petitioner or any other association satisfy the said qualification, the same will be considered.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Heard and perused the records.

¶49

Section 4 of the Karnataka Private Medical

¶50

Establishment Act, 2007 as existed prior to impugned amendment reads as under:

¶51

'' 4. Registration Authority.- There shall be a Registration Authority in each district consisting of the following members, namely:

¶52

(a)	The Deputy Commissioner of the District	Chairman
(b)	District Health and Family Welfare Officer	Member
(c)	President/Secretary, Indian Medical Association of the concerned District	Member

¶53

Thus name of ''Indian Medical Association of the Concerned District'' was already mentioned.

¶54

The president of the petitioner-Association in the instant petition, as already noted, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.4508/2010 questioning the constitutional validity of aforesaid Section 4 of the Act. This Court by its Order dated 03.12.2015, disposed of the said writ petition, declining to entertain the challenge. However, reserving liberty to the petitioner therein to seek redressal of

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

his grievance before the respondent-authority of its claim to be included as a member of Registration Authority under the Act. The said order has attained finality. Therefore, the only question that may arise is whether the impugned amendment found at Annexure-S is sustainable and whether the petitioner has made out any ground for quashing of the same.

¶59

Amendment to Section 4 of the Karnataka Private

¶60

Medical Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2017 reads as under:

¶61

'' 4. Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority .- There shall be a Registration Authority in each district consisting of the following members nominated in such manner with such qualification as may be prescribed, namely:

¶62

(a)	The Deputy Commissioner of the District	Chairman
(b)	District Health and Family Welfare Officer	Member Secretary
(c)	District AYUSH Officer	Member
(d)	One member each from Indian Medical Association and one more association	Members
(e)	One women representative when the Authority is dealing with grievance redressal	Member.]

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that by way of amendment to Section 4, the respondent state has sought to expand the scope of the Registration Authority to vest the power of 'Grievance Redressal Authority' as well, with provisions to take additional members.

¶67

Bare perusal of the provision, more particularly 4(d) indicate that in addition to the Indian Medical Association provision also made to include another association as a member. Notification at Annexure-W is merely a draft of rules prescribing the qualification of an association to become a member of the Governing cell.

¶68

Rule 7-C(1)(a) and Rule 7-C(2)(b) reads as under:

¶69

''7-C. Composition of Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority.-(1) The non-official members of the Authority of a district shall have the qualification specified below.(a) The members representing Indian Medical Association and one more association shall be medical professional with post-graduate degree with experience of minimum ten years in medical profession.''

¶70

''(2) The non-official members of the Authority of a district shall be nominated by the Chairman in the manner specified below.-

¶71

(a) The member representing Indian Medical Association shall be the nominee of the Chapter of the Association having the largest membership in the district.

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

(b) The member representing another Association shall be the nominee of a registered Association representing private medical establishments having the largest membership in the district.''

¶76

Petitioner who claims to be the association having

¶77

come into existence in 1948, if satisfies the said

¶78

requirement/eligibility criteria can also claim to become a member of the authority or anyone else who satisfy the qualification may also claim to be the member of the said authority.

¶79

In the absence of violation of any constitutional provisions being pointed out in respondent-authority carrying out the amendment to Section 4 of the Act vide Annexure-S and prescribing the qualification criteria as per Annexure-W and in the light of earlier challenge mounted by the petitioner having been negated by this Court, this Court do not see any ground to favour the petitioner.

¶80

Accordingly, same is disposed of .

¶81

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, it is open to the petitioner-Association to seek empanelment or nomination to the ''Registration and Grievance Redressal

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2026:KHC:447 WP No. 6841 of 2020

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

Authority'' as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act. Upon

¶86

such representation by the petitioner, if made, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

¶87

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶88

RL

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

The National Integrated Medical Association v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Integrated Medical Association 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

Smt Mangala Gowri. M Vs Cholamandalam Investiment and Finance Company Limited

K. S. Ramanna Vs Public Information Officer

Mr Shabbeer Khan Vs Mohammedia Masjid

Sri H M Gangadharaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Geetha S N Vs the Managing Director

Rathnakar Bank Limited Vs the Tahsildar