Dismissed

P.Jeevankumar, v. Union of India, Rep. by Its

Madras HC15 Oct 2019WP/18342/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, a BAMS holder seeking to practice modern medicine, petitioned for regularisation and protection from penal provisions. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner could not practice any medical system without first registering under the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Rules, 2018.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to register name under Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Rules, 2018.

P.Jeevankumar, Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED :15.10.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P.No.18342 of 2009 and MP.Nos.1 of 2009 and 1 of 2010

¶6

P. Jeevankumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of Health,
New Delhi.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to State,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director General of Police,
Kamaraj Salai,
Chennai - 600 004.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District. ... Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to directing the respondents 1 and 2 to regularise the petitioners' Medicinal Practice in Modern Medicine (Allopathy System) and further Forbear the respondents from enforcing the Penal Provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as against the petitioner in particular.

¶8

1/3

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

For Petitioner : Mrs.A. Karthika Ashok

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.J.Madanagopal Rao [R1]

¶12

Mr.I.Sathish,

¶13

Additional Government Pleader [R2 to R4]

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)

¶16

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to regularise the petitioner's medical practice in Modern Medicine (Allopathy System) and also further direction to the respondents from enforcing the Penal Provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a Medical Practitioner practicing in Ayurveda and Modern Scientific system of medicine, and he has qualified with B.A.M.S. degree. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents has not recognized the petitioner's decree and they are not permitting the petitioner to practice in the Modern Medicine. The 3^rd and 4^th respondents are also interfering with the petitioner's medical practice. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶18

Mrs. A.Karthika Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that pending writ petition, various new enactments have been promulgated, and under the above Acts, the petitioner is taken steps to register his name. In the meantime, the respondents 3 and 4 may be directed not to interfere with the petitioner's practicing in the Modern Medicine.

¶19

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for 3^rd and 4^th respondents, on instructions, submitted that so far they have not received any complaint and they are not conducting any enquiry on the petitioner. Only in anticipation of action being taken against the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶20

Considering the fact that the petitioner has not registered himself as a Medical Practitioner under the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Rules, 2018, without registering his name, the petitioner cannot practice Ayurveda and Modern scientific system.

¶21

Under these circumstances, the prayer sought in this writ petition by the writ petitioner cannot be granted at this stage.

¶22

2/3

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

The writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority and register his name under the relevant Act and Rules. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

To
1. The Secretary to Government,Union of India,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Department of Health,
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to State,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director General of Police,
Kamaraj Salai,
Chennai - 600 004.
4. The Superintendent of Police,
Tiruppur, Tiruppur District.
+1cc to Government Pleader SR.NO. 86494
+1cc to Mrs.A. Karthika Ashok, Advocate sr.85994

¶29

W.P.No.18342 of 2009 and MP.Nos.1 of 2009 and 1 of 2010 ss(co) nr 22/11/2019

¶30

3/3

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Jeevankumar, v. Union of India, Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Jeevankumar, v. Union of India, Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allikulam Pazhaiyaporul Vs the State of T.N., by

Chettinad Builders Private Ltd. Vs State of Tamilnadu

Abdoul Cassime Vs The Competent Authority

M.S.Krishnan, Hereditary Vs the Joint Commissioner

Rajasekar Vs the Revenue Tahisldar Cum

Mrs.Bama Gajapathy, Vs State of Tamilnadu