Disposed

Shaji J Kodankandath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Dec 2021WP(C)/37215/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought directions for proper verification and inspection of X-ray units and the establishment of a state level authority. The Court, noting that inspections are being conducted by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, disposed of the petition without issuing the specific reliefs sought.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs sought in prayer Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications stand closed.

Shaji J Kodankandath Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 37215 OF 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SHAJI J KODANKANDATH
AGED 47 YEARS, S/O JOSE KODANKANDATH,
SNEHA ROSE VILLA, KODANKANDATH HOUSE,
CHEMBUKAVU PO, THRISSUR – 20.

¶10

BY ADVS.
K.B.GANGESH
SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SRI.AMAL S. KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶13

2 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶14

3 THE DIRECTORATE OF RADIATION SAFETY, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND, THRISSUR - 680 001, KERALA.

¶15

4 ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATION BOARD NIYAMAK BHAVAN, ANUSHAKTINAGAR, MUMBAI - 400 094, INDIA.

¶16

SRI. S.RANJITH, SPL GP
SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2021

¶22

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶23

Instant public interest litigation is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

“i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to conduct proper verification and site inspection before providing registrations to new X ray units and to inspect the existing units periodically so as to ensure that all the units are functioning in compliance with Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules 2004 and the regulations prescribed by the 4^th respondent in this regard.

¶25

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to make provisions to conduct inspections on all institutions which has X ray or any other radiation sourced equipments on a quarterly basis.

¶26

iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to establish a state level authority to function as an enforcing authority for the 4^th respondent or in the alternative to direct respondents 1, 2 and 4 to renew Ext. P2 Memorandum of Understanding so as to re-enable the 3^rd respondent to carry out its functions efficiently.”

¶27

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶28

¶29

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition

¶30

are as hereunder:

¶31

Being aggrieved by the non-functioning of the Directorate of Radiation (DRS), 3^rd respondent herein, the petitioner has approached this court. DRS being the enforcing authority of Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), authorized to carry out pre-installation and regulatory inspection of medical diagnostic facilities in Kerala using radiation sourced equipments. DRS was constituted in Kerala as per an MoU signed between AERB and the State Government of Kerala. On 31.12.2016, the validity of the MoU has expired and since then DRS has become non-functional.

¶32

Registration and licensing of new medical diagnostic facilities is being provided by AERB directly through an online platform named "e-LORA", without conducting any preinstallation site inspection and verification of the diagnostic radiation sourced equipments. In the absence of a proper regulatory authority, several diagnostic units using radiation sourced equipments are mushrooming in various parts of the State, in violation of the provisions envisaged in Rule 30 of the

¶33

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶34

¶35

Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004.

¶36

On behalf of the Directorate of Radiation Safety (respondent No.3), a statement dated 14.03.2019 has been filed. Relevant paragraphs of the same read thus:

¶37

“3. It is true that there should be some mechanism to check and monitor the functioning of all medical diagnostic X-ray facilities in Private and Government Sector within the State of Kerala. The Directorate of Radiation Safety was the body authorised for the same and was effectively functioning upto 31.12.2016. Thereafter, the authorization for acting on behalf of AERB was not renewed from 01.01.2017 and on the direction from AERB to stop all regulatory inspections till signing of the new MoU, the Government of Kerala directed the Directorate to stop all regulatory inspections and now there is no periodical inspection either by the Directorate of Radiation Safety or by the AERB in the state of Kerala.

¶38

As per the various provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the responsibility to ensure the radiation safety is vested with the 4^th respondent Atomic Energy Regulation Board. The Radiation Protection Rules, 2004 is also framed under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 for the purpose of monitoring all stages of licensing X-ray installations like siting, installation, services, commissioning and decommissioning.

¶39

The increased use of Medical Diagnostic X Ray can increase the cancer risk, mutation in the exposed population and genetic disorders in the off springs. Even small radiation dose to an individual carry some risk. Foetal irradiation can cause mental retardation. Hence it is necessary to keep the radiation as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) which is the basic principal of Radiation Protection.

¶40

The Radiation Safety scenario was very poor in

¶41

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶42

¶43

Kerala (all over India) and a Project document committee decided to start Directorate of Radiation Safety in Kerala (first of its kind) for effective regulation of radiation safety in Kerala as 80% of man-made radiation is from Medical Diagnostic X-ray and this may cause cancer, hereditary effects, mental retardation to the public at large including children. Hereditary effects will be transmitted to next generation (PDCR). Directorate of Radiation Safety was. formed in 1996 as per G.O(MS)32/96/H&FWD dt. TVM 24.01.1996 and started functioning in 1998 on the basis of the above said order and Project Document Committee report which consist of high level officers from AERB, BARC and Government Of Kerala. Government records reveals that, a MoU was signed during 1999 between Secretary, AERB and Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department and the MoU shall be effective from date of signing and shall remain in force for a period of 5 years from the effective date. It was also mutually agreed that MoU may be extended, if necessary, on mutual discussion and consent between both the above parties.

¶44

As per Annexure R3(a) and the MoU signed, DRS Kerala was functioning effectively up to 31^st December 2016. Accordingly DRS Kerala was entrusted as Registration authority in the state of Kerala in Medical, Agriculture Research and Industry except Department of Atomic Energy institutions. AERB and Government of Kerala also authorised DRS Kerala for the effective implementation of section 29, 30, 31, and 32 of RPR1971.

¶45

It is respectfully submitted that the radiation safety was strictly ensured in the state of Kerala by giving pre installation Report before installation and pre commission report before commissioning of all kind of Medical X Ray units in the State of Kerala. Pre installation reports, pre commission reports and registration details were properly entered in the inventory after strict verification of all radiation safety norms. This is toppled down by the online e-LORA (a self radiation safety declaration and License collection system without any

¶46

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶47

¶48

physical verification) software in India. AERB issued around 1500 registration certificates in addition to 2300 certificates already issued prior to e LORA during this 5 years period. But AERB hardly visited less than 50 units during this 5 year after launching e-LORA in Kerala. Now there is no periodical regulatory inspections, pre installation inspections, pre commission inspections and around 4000 medical X ray units in the state of Kerala are still functioning without AERB Registration and these illegal machines are continuing in Kerala.

¶49

DRS Kerala was functioning effectively upto 31.12.2016 and Authorisation to DRS Kerala was not renewed from 01.01.2017 for not signing a unilaterally AERB prepared MoU. There was no discussion with Government of Kerala before drafting of MoU by AERB. Director DRS Kerala included the pre installation report, pre commission report, power to seal/seize, and terms & conditions of GO(MS) 32/96/H&FWD dated 24.01.1996 and submitted through proper channel to AERB. But no reply or renewed authorization was received from AERB regarding this till date and a "stop- regulatory Inspection letter” was served to DRS Kerala till signing their self prepared MoU. This is against the terms and conditions of the previous MoU, which state "any dispute arising out of MoU shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person mutually agreed by Chairman/AERB and Secretary Department of H&FWD Government of Kerala whose decision shall be final and binding”.

¶50

In the absence of a valid MoU and valid Authorization, DRS Kerala is non functional from 01.01.2017. Neither AERB nor DRS is conducting any periodic or even regular random radiation safety regulatory inspections in Kerala. It is mandatory that x ray units shall not be operated without valid Registration/License. At the same time, more than 3000 X- ray units are illegally functioning and continuing their activities without any AERB action. More over illegal condemned X-ray, CT, Cath lab units from foreign countries

¶51

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶52

¶53

are mushrooming in Kerala. Free lancers and sub agencies are installing/ servicing/ commissioning/ decommissioning the X-ray units. Unauthorised persons are operating the x ray units. No radiation measuring TLD badges are provided to radiation workers, stating neither AERB nor DRS will come for inspection now. QA tests reports are fabricated without physically conducting it.

¶54

In India more than 1 lakh x-ray units are functioning and around 3 lakhs radiation workers (Doctors, Engineers, Technicians, Attenders, Staff nurse, Students and Trainees) are operating the said units. But AERB annual report reveals around 79,000 radiation workers only using TLD Badges (which gives not only radiation dose but also gives information about x-ray tube/lead apron/threefold barrier/testis-ovary shield/ leakage radiation and warns for remedial measures).

¶55

Large number of x-ray units are currently functioning in India and many unauthorised agencies are planning to install condemned units for their financial gain. This has to be strictly prohibited to prevent use of illegal x- ray units to public. There is no emergency at all in giving a licence by online without any physical verification by violating Rule 30 of the Radiation Protection Rules.

¶56

In the back drop of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted that the Directorate of Radiation Safety in Kerala should be allowed to function as before in order to effectively implement the safety of the x-ray installations in the State of Kerala strictly, as provided under the Statute governing the issue.”

¶57

Respondent No.3 has also enclosed a copy of G.O. (MS)No.32/96/H&FWD dated 24.01.1996 regarding setting up

¶58

of a Radiation Safety Directorate in the State and also instructions of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board dated

¶59

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶60

¶61

05.02.2018 about the unauthorised functioning of DRS,

¶62

Kerala.

¶63

Noticing that the State Government has not entered

¶64

into an agreement, on 16.11.2021, we passed the following

¶65

order:

¶66

“Provisions of the Atomic Energy Act (33 of 1962) and the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 framed thereunder, provide authorities, namely Atomic Energy Regulation Board (AERB) at the center, and Directorate of Radiation Safety (DRS), to carry out regulatory inspection of the diagnostic centers, within the State.

¶67

Atomic Energy Regulation Board, Mumbai, respondent No. 4, has filed a statement dated 01.04.2019.

¶68

Directorate of Radiation Safety, represented by Director, Thrissur, respondent No. 3, has filed a statement dated 14.03.2019. Additional statement dated 05.08.2019 has also been filed by respondent No.3.

¶69

Going through the statement dated 5.8.2019, it could been seen that the draft MoU Annexure R3(C), sent for signature to the Government of Kerala in 2016, was refused to be signed by the Government for the reason that the power given to DRS for enforcing Rules 29, 31 and 32 of the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971, is conspicuously absent, and therefore, refused.

¶70

MoU has been drafted in the year 2016 and the reasons for not signing the agreement by Government of Kerala are as above.

¶71

On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr. S. Renjith, learned Special Government Pleader for the State, as well as Mr. Amal S. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the position remains the

¶72

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶73

¶74

same, and thus, DRS has become nonfunctional.

¶75

More than five years have elapsed since the date of draft MoU. Writ petition has been filed in the year 2018.

¶76

Mr. S. Renjith, learned Special Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, as well as Ms. Priya, learned counsel appearing for the Atomic Energy Regulation Board, Mumbai, respondent No. 4, are directed to get instructions as to the stage of the draft Memorandum of Understanding of the year 2016, the subsequent developments, as to whether the defects, if any, pointed out by the State Government, have been rectified or not, and accordingly, orders issued for modification of the draft MoU, or whether the said MoU is still insisted by the Atomic Energy Regulation Board, Mumbai, respondent No. 4.

¶77

As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, statutory provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 framed thereunder, have to be implemented, in so far as the verification of the diagnostic radiation source equipments, units etc., functioning in various parts of the State, and thus, there should not be any violation of the provisions of the statue and rules framed thereunder.

¶78

Said issue involves public interest, and therefore, State as well as the Atomic Energy Regulation Board, Mumbai, respondent No. 4, are directed to furnish the subsequent developments, if any, and the bottle necks to be cleared for effective implementation of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, and the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 framed thereunder.

¶79

Though by order dated 16.08.2019, Atomic Energy Regulation Board, Mumbai, respondent No. 4, has been directed to apprise the Court as to how the required regulatory exercise are being directly done by AERB, so far, no additional materials have been submitted, except the statement dated 01.04.2019 already submitted before this Court.

¶80

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶81

¶82

In the light of the above, Atomic Energy Regulation Board, Mumbai, respondent No. 4, is directed to file additional statement, with all supporting documents, within a period of two weeks.

¶83

Post on 01.12.2021.”

¶84

On this day, when the matter came up for further

¶85

hearing, Mr.S.Ranjith, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that there is status quo and no formal agreement has been entered into between the parties regarding inspection and regulatory control.

¶86

However, additional statement dated 30.11.2021 has been filed on behalf of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (respondent No.4) contending that respondent No.4 is conducting inspections as per the statutory provisions of the

¶87

Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004 and the orders issued by the Government of India.

¶88

Relevant portions of the additional statement dated 30.11.2021 are reproduced:

¶89

With respect to the averments made by 3^rd Respondent about the decision of revision of the powers of DSS, as taken unilaterally by AERB, 4^th Respondent denies the said claim. It is respectfully

¶90

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶91

¶92

clarified that due consultations and communications with Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Kerala were carried out in view of publication of revised AERB Safety Code for Medical Diagnostic X-ray Equipment (AERB/RF-MED/SC-3 (Rev. 2), operationalization of web based licensing system (eLORA), signing MoU etc. The details on this aspect had been provided in statement dated 12.02.2019 filed by the 4^th Respondent.

¶93

With respect to the averment of 3 Respondent regarding radiation safety of diagnostic radiology X- Ray facilities, it is most respectfully submitted that the details have been submitted in statement dated 12.02.2019 filed by the 4^th Respondent (Para no 18-23 - under Regulatory Control over Medical X-ray Facilities by AERB)

¶94

It is further submitted that Service Engineer (installation engineers) are trained persons employed by supplier(s) of diagnostic X-ray equipment. Installation Engineer(s)/Service Engineers installs the X-ray equipment after verifying the shielding adequacy of X-ray room at X-ray center(s) and submit installation report(s) independently. It is respectfully submitted that as on date (30-03-2019), 2717 X-ray centers in State of Kerala are registered with AERB and 4525 diagnostic X-ray equipment in State of Kerala are licensed with AERB. It is further submitted that all these Installation reports are verified by AERB during licensing process of diagnostic X-ray equipment.

¶95

Further, AERB carries out routine regulatory inspections of Radiotherapy and/or Nuclear Medicine facilities. If the Type Approval Testing of diagnostic radiology equipment(s) is in a hospital, the diagnostic radiology facility of the same hospital is also inspected apart from type approval testing. The details on this aspect had been provided in statement dated 12.02.2019 filed by the 4^th Respondent. The details of the same are provided in Para 23 of the Statement dated 12.02.2019.

¶96

It is also submitted that service engineer is responsible for installation of an x-ray equipment at end-user facility on behalf of supplier/service agency of x-ray

¶97

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶98

¶99

equipment. Service engineers are considered as radiations workers. Responsibilities of radiation worker are mentioned in the safety code [AERB/RFMED/SC-3 (Rev. 2)]. The minimum qualification and training of service engineer are as follows:

¶100

i) Degree/Diploma in Electrical/Electronic/ Biomedical/Mechanical engineering or in an associated discipline/Basic degree in Science with Physics as one of the subjects from a recognised University/Institution and

¶101

ii) Certification of successful completion of training course on "Radiation Safety and Quality Assurance in Diagnostic Radiology" conducted by authorized agencies.

¶102

Above qualification and training of service engineer are mentioned in Safety Code "Radiation Safety in Manufacturer, Supply and Use of Medical Diagnostic X-ray Equipment [No. AERB/RF-MED/SC-3 (Rev. 2). October, 2016] and Special Order issued (vide ref. AERB/RSD/MDX/Sp order 2012/14316 dated Nov 26, 2012) by Chairman, AERB.

¶103

There is a requirement for registration of service engineer in e-LORA (e-Licensing of Radiation Applications) system of AERB in which radiation professional number is assigned after review of submitted documents of his qualification and training.

¶104

In addition, AERB, has been taking Special Inspection cum Enforcement drive for diagnostic radiology facilities in different states and the non compliant institutions (equipment) are sealed, or issued with appropriate directives to adhere with the safety requirements. The details on Special Inspection cum Enforcement drive in State of Kerala had been provided in statement dated 12.02.2019 filed by the 4^th Respondent. The details of the same are provided in Para 24 of the Statement dated 12.02.2019. Further, AERB is conducting intensive state wise inspections of the Diagnostic Radiology facilities. It may be further noted that during such inspections, facilities/ equipment necessitated immediate sealing are only 4- 8% of the total number of equipment inspected. Majority of the facilities have been found to be in

¶105

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶106

¶107

compliance with the regulatory requirements.

¶108

It is respectfully submitted that routine inspections in State of Kerala will continue as per annual approved schedule as being done for all other states. Further, as per the practice followed by AERB, surprise inspections in various states will be done on case by case basis.

¶109

From the above material on record it could be deduced that though the State or the constituted authority did not conduct periodical inspections, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has been conducting special inspection cum enforcement drive for diagnostic radiology facilities in different States and that the same have already been pointed out in the statement dated 12.02.2019. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board that the routine inspections in State of Kerala will continue as per the annual approved schedule as being done for all other States.

¶110

Placing on record the above details furnished by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (respondent No.4), we are of the view that there is no need to issue any directions sought for in prayer Nos.1 and 2.

¶111

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶112

¶113

Insofar as the relief sought for in prayer No.3 is concerned, no agreement has been entered into between the parties for inspection to be conducted by such authority. Reasons for not executing the agreement have already been taken note of. However, inspections are stated to be conducted by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (respondent No.4), periodically.

¶114

In the light of the above, writ petition is disposed of.

¶115

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶116

Sd/-

¶117

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶118

Sd/-

¶119

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶120

vpv

¶121

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶122

¶123

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37215/2018

¶124

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶125

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT DOCUMENT
NO.AERB/SEC/DRS/94 DATED 20/04/1994.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT OF THE MEMORANDUM
OF UNDERSTANDING SIGNED BETWEEN AERB AND
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE WITH COVERING LETTER DATED
25/04/1997.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
NO.AERB/DRA&C/2131/23/2018 DATED
05/02/2018.

¶126

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶127

ANNEXURE R3(A)A COPY OF THE GO(MS)32/96/H&FWD DATED
24.01.1996.

¶128

ANNEXURE R3(B)A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.2.2018
ISSUED BY THE AERB TO THE STATE OF KERALA.

¶129

ANNEXURE R3(C)TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT MOU EXECUTED IN THE
YEAR 1995.

¶130

ANNEXURE R3(D)TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT MOU SENT FOR
SIGNATURE TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA FOR
2016 AND WHICH WAS REFUSED TO BE SIGNED BY
THE GOVERNMENT.

¶131

ANNEXURE R3(E)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.08.2014
ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN AERB.

¶132

ANNEXURE R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.09.2014.

¶133

ANNEXURE R3(G)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
7.8.2014.

¶134

ANNEXURE R4(A)TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION
NO.S.O.4772 DATED 15.11.1983 PUBLISHED IN
GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 31.12.1983, PART-
II, SECTION 3(II), CONSTITUTING AERB.

¶135

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶136

¶137

ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 12.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 21.10.2006.

¶138

ANNEXURE R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AERB/SEC/DRSKERALA/2016/91 DATED 20.05.2016 ISSUED BY SECRETARY, ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD.

¶139

ANNEXURE R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AERB/RSD/DC/ DRS-KL/2016/90 DATED 05.01.2017 ISSUED BY HEAD, RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY DIVISION, ATOMIC ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD.

¶140

ANNEXURE R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AERB/RSD/DC/ DRS-KERALA/2017/455 DATED 20.3.2017 ISSUED BY HEAD, RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY DIVISION & EXTERNAL RELATIONS OFFICER, AERB.

¶141

ANNEXURE R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AERB/RSD/DRS – KERALA/2017/757 DATED 22.05.2017 ISSUED BY HEAD, RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY DIVISION & EXTERNAL RELATIONS OFFICER, AERB.

¶142

ANNEXURE R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AERB/DRA&C/2131/23/2018 DATED 05.02.2018 ISSUED BY HEAD, RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY DIVISION & COMMUNICATIONS, AERB.

¶143

ANNEXURE R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE REFERENCE NO.AERB/DRA&C/4.1/2018/51 DATED 9.04.2018.

¶144

ANNEXURE R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.HEALTHS1/118/2017-HEALTH DATED 13.06.2018 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶145

ANNEXURE R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AERB/DRA&C/2131/2018/100 DATED 10.07.2018 ISSUED BY HEAD, DIRECTORATE OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS & COMMUNICATIONS, AERB.

¶146

ANNEXURE R4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION SUMMARY OF SPECIAL INSPECTION (DR FACILITIES) AT KERALA.

¶147

W.P.(C)No.37215 of 2018

¶148

¶149

ANNEXURE R4(L)TRUE COPY OF THE AERB SAFETY CODE
NO.AERB/RF-MED/SC-3 (REV.2)

¶150

ANNEXURE R4(M)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AERB/RSD/MDX/SP-
ORDER/2012/14316 DATED 26.11.2012.

¶151

//TRUE COPY//

¶152

P.A. TO JUDGE

Shaji J Kodankandath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji J Kodankandath 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

J and P Sand and Aggregates International Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Artist Sasikala Vs State of Kerala

Adv. Arsha Satheesan Vs Union of India

C.J.John, Vs State of Kerala

S. Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar B. Vs Binobi