Dismissed

Gordhan Ram @ Gordhan Das v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2015CW/4102/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a notice preventing him from working as a Registered Medical Practitioner due to lack of valid qualification. The court dismissed the petition in limine as no action was taken against the petitioner based on the text.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in limine as no action was taken against the petitioner pursuant to the notice.

Gordhan Ram @ Gordhan Das Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

Gordhan Ram @ Gordhan Das Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4102/14)

¶3

Date of Order : 20.2.15

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

¶5

Mr. G. Vaishnav, for the petitioner.

¶6

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not permitting him to work as Registered Medical practitioner on the ground that he is not possessing any valid qualification/certificate authorising him to practice in alternative medicines. The notice dated 11.10.11 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jaisalmer, in this regard, is also impugned in the present writ petition.

¶7

Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he has completed one year Dispenser's Training Course at Civil Hospital, Sanghar in the year 1995-96 and thereafter, passed Dispenser's examination in the year 1997 from Peoples Medical College, Nawabshah and pursuant thereto a Dispenser's certificate was issued in his favour by Sindh Medical Faculty, Karachi (Pakistan). It is averred that the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Calcutta, affiliated

¶8

¶9

with Open International University for Complementary Medicines has issued a certificate dated 20.12.07 in his favour authorising him to practice in System of Alternative Medicines and therefore, he is entitled to practice as Registered Medical Practitioner.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that right to practice any profession or carry any occupation is fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner who holds the qualification to practice in Alternative Medicines and has been granted registration by Indian Board of Alternative Medicines cannot be debarred from practicing as Registered Medical Practitioner. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ' Dr. Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others' (1998) 7 SCC 579.

¶11

It is to be noticed that by way of the impugned notice dated 11.10.11, the petitioner was directed to produce the documents, if any, showing that he is holding a valid qualification making him eligible to work as Medical Practitioner. It is alleged therein that if the petitioner fails to produce the requisite documents, an FIR shall be lodged

¶12

¶13

against him for committing offences under Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Sections 411 & 420 of IPC.

¶14

Challenging the notice dated 11.10.14 issued as aforesaid, the petitioner has filed present writ petition after a lapse of more than two and half years. It is not the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the notice issued, any action is taken against him by the competent authority by passing an appropriate order. In this view of the matter, as a matter of fact, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.

¶15

Further, the certificate regarding the qualification alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner issued by Indian Board of Alternative Medicine does not appear to have been issued by any statutory authority. From bare perusal of the certificate issued, it is apparent that the Indian Board of Alternative Medicine is only a registered institution affiliated to some Open University. On the basis of such certificate, the petitioner cannot claim right to practice Indian System of Medicine in the State of Rajasthan. Moreover, even if the the qualification alleged to have been acquired by the petitioner is found to be valid,

¶16

¶17

this by itself does not entitle the petitioner to practice in Indian System of Medicine in the State of Rajasthan, unless on the strength of the requisite qualification or fulfillment of the conditions set out, he is duly registered/enlisted under the provisions of the Indian Medicine Act, 1953. To put in other words, no person other than the person who possesses requisite qualification and duly registered under the specified statute of the State is entitled to practice in the State of Rajasthan in Indian System of Medicine.

¶18

In this view of the matter, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Mukhtiar Chand's case also does not help the petitioner in any manner.

¶19

In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine.

¶20

(SANGEET LODHA), J.

¶21

vij 2

Gordhan Ram @ Gordhan Das v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gordhan Ram @ Gordhan Das v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sameja Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs State and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Chhutan Singh Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Rehana and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Fateh Mohammand and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Mithu and Ors. Vs State and Ors.