Disposed

Indian Speech, Language & Hearing Association v. the Chairperson

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/13084/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Rehabilitation Council of India to consider the petitioner's documents regarding unqualified practitioners, conduct necessary investigation within three months, and dispose of the matter while ensuring petitioner cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's documents, investigate, and take a decision within three months.

Indian Speech, Language & Hearing Association… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13084 of 2013 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

INDIAN SPEECH, LANGUAGE & HEARING ASSOCIATION KERALA STATE BRANCH, REG.NO.S.NO.1227/2003 REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY DR.PREM G. KIZHAKKENCHERIL HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU P.O, KOCHI.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE CHAIRPERSON

¶11

REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA (RCI),

¶12

B-22, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110 016.

¶13

2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY

¶14

RCI, B-22, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110 016.

¶15

3. SECRETARY

¶16

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶17

4. CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES SAROJINI HOUSE, 6 BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶18

5. CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶19

6. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶20

R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG

¶21

BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG

¶22

R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

WP(C).No. 13084 of 2013 (I)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

EXT.P1: - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6-9-2011 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2: - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-7-2010 SENT BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ACADEMICS) OF THE RCI EXT.P3: - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-5-2008 EXT.P4: - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4-5-12 EXT.P4(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EXT.P5: - TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CHARTS AND MEDICAL REPORTS RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No.13084 of 2013

¶34

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner is the Secretary of the Kerala State Branch of Indian Speech, Language & Hearing Association. Respondents 1 and 2 represent Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), a statutory body constituted under the RCI Act, 1992, and its specific role is to develop, standardize and regulate training programmes and courses at various levels in the field of rehabilitation. As per Sec.11(1) of the Act, the qualifications granted by any University or other institution in India which are included in the schedule of the Act shall be recognized qualifications for rehabilitation professionals. As per Sec.13(2) of the Act, no person other than the rehabilitation professional who possesses a recognized rehabilitation qualification, and is enrolled on the Register, shall practice as rehabilitation professional anywhere in India. It is further stipulated in Sec.13(3) of the Act that any persons who act in contravention of any provision of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.13084 of 2013

¶39

with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

¶40

According to the petitioner, in spite of all these guidelines, and penal provision, there are so many unqualified persons like Diploma holders in Hearing, Language and Speech, Ear, Nose and Throat doctors, Vocational Higher Secondary Certificate holders (ECG & Audiometry), and persons who do not possess even Diploma and Special educators are engaged in independent practice as audiologists and speech language pathologists. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation along with documents to prove the illegality governing the field. However, according to the petitioner, no action was initiated by the respective statutory authorities, and it is in this background, seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶41

First and second respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the allegations and claims and demands made by the petitioner. However, it is also stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 as follows:

¶42

“7. That the Council vide letter No.791/RCI/2010-2243 dated 23.07.2010 (page no. 12 of the writ petition) directed Ms. Prathibha G. Dhawan,

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.13084 of 2013

¶45

C/o. P.P. Madhavan, G to change the designation on the prescription letter-head as she can write 'speech and hearing technician' and not 'audiologist and speech pathologist'.

¶46

9. That any legal proceeding/prosecution can be initiated against a person/organisation on a complaint received by the Council against him/her. The letter dated 04.05.2012 of the petitioner to the Council is a complaint against the non-professionals in general and there is no specific name of any non-professional alleged to be working as Audiologist and Speech Language Pathologist. The Council could have initiated action against the non-professionals practising unauthorizedly in the field of disability had the name of the specific organisation/professional been mentioned by the petitioner”.

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶48

Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Since as per the submissions made in the counter affidavit dated 05.08.2013, quoted above, it can be seen, respondents are ready to go ahead with action, provided sufficient details are given by the petitioner, enabling the respondents to launch prosecution or

¶50

W.P.(C) No.13084 of 2013 4

¶51

other proceedings against the persons who are illegally acting on the basis of the respective statute. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, along with Ext.P5, all required informations are passed on, and if further assistance is required, petitioner is willing to cooperate with the respondents in order to attain a finality to the investigation conducted by the respondents.

¶52

Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that a direction can be issued to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider Ext.P5 along with the documents produced by the petitioner and attain finality to the same, after conducting necessary investigation, if necessary, by issuing notice to any affected or interested persons. It is made clear, petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry undertaken by respondents 1 and 2, evident from the deposition made in the counter affidavit, quoted above. At any rate, a decision shall be taken as provided above, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

W.P.(C) No.13084 of 2013

¶54

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶57

//true copy//

¶58

P.S. to Judge

¶59

St/06.10.2016

Indian Speech, Language & Hearing Association v. the Chairperson

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Speech, Language & Hearing Association v. the Chairperson

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

M.Naseema Vs the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle

M.P.Joosa Alias Jose Vs the State Secretary , Masters Athletic Association

G.Sundaresan Vs State of Kerala

K.Somadas Vs State of Kerala

K.Seethammapillai @ Seethamma Vs the District Collector

Vidhu S.T. Vs State of Kerala