Dismissed

Kanagaraj v. The Joint Director of Health Services

Madras HC5 Jun 2024WP(MD)/10817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking an injunction against respondents interfering with his practice as a Siddha doctor. The court noted the petitioner lacked recognized qualifications and had falsely listed his practice area as Allopathic in clinical establishment applications.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus sought against respondents to restrain interference with petitioner's practice was not granted.

Kanagaraj Vs The Joint Director of Health Services — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.10817 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 05.06.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.10817 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD)No.9652 of 2024

Kanagaraj

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Joint Director of Health Services, Dindigul District.

¶11

2.The District Siddha Medical Officer, Dindigul District.

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer, Development of Government Primary Health Centre, Ammayanaickanur, Dindigul District. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, consider the petitioner's representation dated on 22.03.2024 and directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to disturb the petitioner in the performance of petitioner's work as Siddha practitioner in Vignesh Clinic at Door No. 4-1124 Main Road, Kodai Road, Dindigul District.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/4

¶16

W.P(MD)No.10817 of 2024

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kishore For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh Additional Government Pleader

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard both sides.

¶20

2.This writ petition has been filed for forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's practice as Siddha Doctor.

¶21

3.The petitioner has not obtained any degree or qualification from a recognised institution. Be that as it may, the respondents point out that in the applications submitted by the petitioner for registration under the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishment Act, the petitioner has mentioned his area of practice as Allopathic. When the petitioner is not qualified to practice Allopathy, I fail to understand as to how he submitted this kind of application. Copy of the application submitted by the petitioner has also been produced. In Clause 11, the petitioner has mentioned the details of the equipments maintained by him (Stethoscope, B.P.Apparatus, Thermometer, Urine Test, Hypodermic, etc).

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/4

¶24

W.P(MD)No.10817 of 2024

¶25

4.I am therefore not in a position to grant relief as sought for by the

¶26

petitioner.

¶27

5.This writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to

¶28

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

05.06.2024

¶30

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No MGA

¶31

¶32

1.The Joint Director of Health Services, Dindigul District.

¶33

2.The District Siddha Medical Officer, Dindigul District.

¶34

3.The Block Development Officer, Development of Government Primary Health Centre, Ammayanaickanur,

¶35

Dindigul District.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

3/4

¶38

W.P(MD)No.10817 of 2024

¶39

G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.

¶40

MGA

¶41

W.P(MD)No.10817 of 2024

¶42

05.06.2024

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

4/4

Kanagaraj v. The Joint Director of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanagaraj v. The Joint Director of Health Services

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

S.Prabhavathi Vs The District Collector

Vasu Vs The District Collector

Jeyaganga.J Vs The Sub-Registrar

S.Joseph Vs The Assistant Engineer

Arunkumar Vs The Commissioner

Paramasivam.M Vs the Secretary