Allowed

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2013WP(C)/21667/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Practitioners challenged an order rejecting their application for exemption from registration under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. The Court held that the pendency of a related writ under a different Act is not a bar. It set aside the rejection order and directed reconsideration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondent directed to reconsider matter in light of recommendation and Section 17(3) of the Act within two months after hearing petitioners.

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/26TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21667 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. M.R.BHASKARAN VAIDYAR, SON OF V.G.RAMAN, SOUPARNIKA, NELLIKODE P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 016.

¶8

2. K.V.MADHAVA VARRIER, NIRMALA BHAVAN, PERUVAYAL P.O., MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

3. EDAVANA LOHITHAKSHAN VAIDYAR, KANAKALAYAM, IRINGAL, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶13

2. DIRECTOR,

¶14

INDIA SYSTEM OF MEDICINE (BHARATHEEYA CHIKILSA VAKUPPU) AROGYA BHAVAN, P.B.NO.182, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶15

3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶16

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Prv.

¶19

W.P.(C).NO.21667/2013-G:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ORDER G.O.(RT) NO.3708/2008 H & FWD DATED 10/11/2008.

¶23

EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THIS LETTER BEARING NO.2516/11 DATED 20/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NUMBER 36134/G2/2011 H&FWD DATED 29/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS' LETTER DATED 2/6/2013 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

========================

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 21667 of 2013

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 18th day of October, 2013

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:

¶37

“1. Issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Exhibit P3 is illegal, arbitrary and issued without jurisdiction and quash it.

¶38

Direct the respondent No.3 to consider and pass orders in pursuance of Ext.P2 without any delay.”

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the

¶40

petitioners are Practitioners of traditional Ayurvedic Medicine of Kozhikode, which area was part of the erstwhile Malabar region of Madras State. It is stated that, all the petitioners are having nearly five decades of practice as above and are qualified to get exemption from registration and have permission to practise in ayurvedic medicine under Section 38 of the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. But because of the enabling G.O

¶41

issued by the Government in this regard, W.P.(C).No. 12533/11 came to be filed before this Court wherein an interim order of stay was granted on 26.04.2011. This being the position, the

¶42

W.P.C. No. 21667 of 2013 -2-

¶43

petitioners are not in a position to get exemption under the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 and to pursue practice.

¶44

It is contended that, the petitioners at the same time are also eligible to have exemption under a different enactment, by virtue of the mandate under Section 17 (3) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970, which enables the persons concerned who are having 5 years' practice as on the date of commencement of the Act, to continue the practice. It is also pointed out that, the Government has already issued various orders including G.O.(Rt)NO. 2880/2008/H&FWD dated 26.8.2008 enabling similarly situated persons to practise Ayurvedic medicine and hence that, the petitioners are also entitled to have similar relief. It was accordingly that, necessary application was filed before the 2nd respondent, which was considered and recommended by the competent authority, vide Ext.P2.

¶45

However, on considering the application, the request was not favourably acted upon by the 3rd respondent, who issued Ext.P3 proceedings dated 29.11.2012, referring to the pendency

¶46

W.P.C. No. 21667 of 2013 -3-

¶47

of W.P.(C).No. 12533/2011 and the interim order passed with reference to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of W.P.(C). No. 12533/2011 and the interim order passed therein are not attracted to the case in hand, as the petitioners stand on a different pedestal, being qualified under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 , wherein a separate provision by virtue of Section 17(3) takes care of the situation. The application preferred by the petitioners was with specific reference to the said 'Act' and not with reference to the Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953, submits the learned counsel.

¶48

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶49

During the course of hearing the learned Government Pleader submits that, Ext.P3 came to be issued only by virtue of the factual similarity with regard to the consequences which resulted because of the interim stay granted in W.P.(C).No. 12533/2011, however conceding that, the said writ petition relates to Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953; while the relief sought for in this writ petition is with reference to

¶50

W.P.C. No. 21667 of 2013 -4-

¶51

Section 17(3) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970.

¶52

In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the application preferred by the petitioners has necessarily to be considered by the competent authority in tune with the mandate of Section 17(3) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and the pendency of W.P.(C).No. 12533/2011 and the interim order passed therein with reference to the TravancoreCochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 need not be treated as a bar in this regard. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P2 recommendation and the relevant provisions of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. Necessary orders shall be passed in this regard after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

The writ petition is allowed to the said extent. No cost.

¶54

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶55

kp/-

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janardhanan Chettiar Vs a.M.Ashraf

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar

K.K.Chacko Vs the State of Kerala

K.Dasan Vs Inspector General (Registration)

Prashob Sugathan Vs the Passport Officer

Murukan Vs Chief Conservator of Forest & Custodian of Vested Forest