Disposed

Mohamed Iqbal v. The Director

Madras HC6 Sept 2021WP/18587/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition alleging a third respondent practiced Allopathy without qualification. Court directed a fresh detailed representation to the Joint Director for an inquiry with notice to the third respondent and directed a speaking order within ten weeks. Petition disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to carry fresh representation to Joint Director; Joint Director to conduct inquiry with notice to third respondent and issue speaking order within ten weeks.

Mohamed Iqbal Vs The Director — Consumer Protection | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:06.09.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU W.P.No.18587 of 2021

¶7

Mohamed Iqbal ...Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Director Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy PP Garden Arumpakkam Chennai 600 106.

¶10

The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine PP Garden Arumpakkam Chennai 600106.

¶11

Azeem Basha ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent for restraining the 3rd respondent from cross practice of Allopathy by implementing the order dated 25.01.2021 in Na.Ka.No. 13/Tha. Na. E. Ma. Ka./2020 passed by the 2nd respondent, consequently directing the 1st respondent to consider the petitioners representation dated 12.07.2021 in accordance with law within the time stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohamed Ansar For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar,

¶14

State Government Pleader, for RR 1 and 2 * * * * *

¶15

ORDER

¶16

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶17

There does not appear to be much of public interest involved in the present matter and, it is more than likely that the petitioner has a personal axe to grind against the third

¶18

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

¶19

respondent which has culminated in the present petition being instituted.

¶20

The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has practised Allopathy, though the third respondent does not possess any appropriate qualification in such regard. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has qualified to practice only Unani medicine and says that the petitioner's representation to the second respondent Registrar has not been dealt with.

¶21

The petitioner is permitted to carry a fresh, detailed representation pertaining to the conduct of the third respondent to the Joint Director, Department of health, whereupon such Joint Director will conduct an inquiry upon previous notice to the third respondent and take appropriate action as may be deemed necessary in accordance with law. It is made clear that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the third respondent have not been gone into.

¶22

Since the order does not prejudice the third respondent in any manner and requires the third respondent to be issued notice before any inquiry is conducted on the petitioner's representation, no previous notice has been issued to the third respondent herein.

¶23

W.P.No.18587 of 2021 is disposed of without any order as to costs. It is hoped that the petitioner's representation is dealt with by a speaking order to be forwarded both to the petitioner and the third respondent by the concerned Joint Director within ten weeks of the receipt of the representation.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

sra

¶28

To:

¶29

The Director Directorate of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy PP Garden Arumpakkam Chennai 600 106.

¶30

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

¶31

The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine PP Garden Arumpakkam Chennai 600106.

¶32

+1CC to Government Pleader, Sr.No.44909

¶33

W.P.No.18587 of 2021

¶34

RLD (CO) K.RK. (13.09.2021)

¶35

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

Mohamed Iqbal v. The Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Iqbal v. The Director

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

Sri Sumathinath Bhagwan Vs The Commissioner

K.Vinayagam Vs The District Collector

Tirumalaa Daairy Limited Vs Tirmala Milk Products Private Limited

Chinnaguttappa Vs The Principal Secretary to the

P.Subramanian, Vs The Registrar General

A.Mydeen Bi Vs The Branch Manager