[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Sanjay Muljibhai Patolia vs Gujarat Medical Council on 2 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3934 of 2025
==========================================================
SANJAY MULJIBHAI PATOLIA
Versus
GUJARAT MEDICAL COUNCIL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL with MR ARJUN M JOSHI(11247) with
MR RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITUL K SHELAT(2419) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 02/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner herein challenges
the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the respondent No.1 Gujarat
Medical Council whereby the petitioner's name has been removed
from the Register of Medical Practitioners for a period of three
years.
2. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Founder-Director of
Asian Bariatric, Khyati Multispeciality Hospital at Ahmedabad and
New Life Hospital at Rajkot. It is submitted that the petitioner is an
acclaimed obesity surgeon and practicing for past 25 years. The
learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that two patients
came to be admitted in the Cardiology Department of Khyati
Multispeciality Hospital, who passed away during the treatment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Pursuant thereto, an Inquiry Committee came to be set up by the
State Government. The Inquiry Committee examined the reports of
the patients and concluded that the Khyati Multispeciality Hospital
had conducted such medical procedures to avail the benefits under
the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana. Pursuant thereto, an FIR
came to be filed on 13.11.2024 at Vastrapur Police Station against
the Directors of Khyati Multispeciality Hospital including the
petitioner. On the same day, two separate FIRs came to be filed
against the Directors of Khyati Multispeciality Hospital by the
relatives of the deceased at Vastrapur Police Station. Thereafter, the
Additional Director, Medical Services, Gandhinagar addressed a
complaint on 14.11.2024 to the respondent No.1 Council to take
appropriate action against the Doctors of Khyati Multispeciality
Hospital. Upon receipt of such complaint, the respondent No.1
Council issued notice the petitioner and sought his response along
with relevant documents within seven days. That on 21.11.2024, the
petitioner through his wife Dr. Hetal Patolia replied to the notice
dated 14.11.2024 stating that the petitioner was taking legal
recourse against the FIRs filed against him and the relevant
documents, as sought for by the respondent No.1 Council, were in
the custody of the Investigating Officer and thus, inaccessible to the
petitioner. The wife of the petitioner, therefore, requested three
months' time to supply the necessary documents and also to file
response to the notice dated 14.11.2024.
2.1 The learned senior counsel submits that on 04.12.2024, in
connection with the aforesaid FIRs, the petitioner came to be
arrested and remanded to custody till 18.12.2024. He submits that
thereafter, the petitioner continued to be in judicial custody till
08.05.2025 when he was released on bail. The learned senior
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
counsel submits that while the petitioner was in the judicial custody,
the respondent No.1 Council issued a communication dated
12.12.2024 directing him to remain present for hearing before the
Executive Committee of the respondent No.1 Council on 08.01.2025
along with the relevant papers, reports and documents etc. in
support of his reply. On the said date, the wife of the petitioner
appeared before the Executive Committee of the respondent No.1
and requested for time. However, it is submitted that the wife of the
petitioner was made to write a one page note conveying that the
petitioner is not involved in the treatment of cardiac patient, nor
involved in the management of the Cardiology Department of the
Khyati Multispeciality Hospital. The learned senior counsel submits
that the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 came to be passed in
mechanical manner without assigning any reason and without giving
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that by the
impugned order, the petitioner's name came to be removed from
the Register of Medical Practitioners for a period of three years.
2.2 The learned senior counsel submits that the impugned order
dated 18.02.2025 has been passed in complete breach of principles
of natural justice. He submits that all the relevant cases papers and
treatment record as well as the patient reports were in the custody
of the Investigating Officer. He submits that the petitioner was not
in a position to give an effective reply to the complaint filed against
him by the Additional Director, Medical Services, Gandhinagar.
Further, the petitioner, apprehending his arrest, was also taking
legal recourse against the FIRs filed against him. He submits that in
such circumstances, the petitioner through his wife had requested
for appropriate time of at least three months to supply the
necessary documents and give an effective reply to the complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
filed against him. The learned senior counsel submits that on the
said date of hearing, the wife of the petitioner appeared before the
Executive Committee and informed that the petitioner was arrested
and was in judicial custody and therefore, he cannot remain present
before the Executive Committee for his defense. She has further
informed that the petitioner did not have access to any of the
relevant documents for giving a necessary explanation in respect of
the treatment given to the deceased patient by the Cardiology
Department. She again sought for time to give an effective reply to
the notice dated 14.11.2024. The learned senior counsel submits
that however, the Executive Committee insisted her to give a hand-
written note that her husband - the petitioner herein is obesity
surgeon and not involved in the treatment of cardiac patient or
affairs of Cardiology Department and that he is not an authorized
signatory of any management of Khyati Multispeciality Hospital.
Accordingly, the wife of the petitioner has given an undated hand-
written note to the committee. The learned senior counsel submits
that without waiting for any reply on merits to the complaint, the
respondent No.1 Council, in its General Body meeting, has passed
the impugned order and has taken a decision to remove the name
of the petitioner from the Register of Medical Practitioners
maintained by the respondent No.1 Council for a period of three
years. He submits that in absence of any effective hearing granted
to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 be quashed
and set aside.
3. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Mr. Mitul Shelat
appearing for the respondent No.1 Gujarat Medical Council submits
that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of filing
appeal to the Ethics & Medical Registration Board of the National
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Medical Commission in accordance with Section 30(3) of the
National Medical Commission Act, 2019. He submits that the present
Writ Petition may not be entertained on the said count. The learned
senior counsel further submits that the impugned order has been
passed after giving hearing to the wife of the petitioner, who had
appeared on behalf of the petitioner on the date of hearing on
08.01.2025. He submits that ample time was given to the petitioner
to file his reply to the notice dated 14.11.2024. He submits that the
stand taken by the wife of the petitioner Dr. Hetal Patolia was that
the petitioner is obesity surgeon and he was not involved in any
administration or affairs pertaining to the Cardiology Department of
Khyati Multispeciality Hospital and that he was not involved in the
treatment of the deceased patient. He submits that the petitioner
had nothing more to submit at the time of hearing. That accordingly,
the wife of the petitioner had given a hand-written note in that
regard. He submits that thereafter, taking into consideration the
submissions made by the wife of the petitioner, the respondent No.1
Council has passed the impugned order. He, therefore,, submits that
it cannot be said that no hearing was afforded to the petitioner
before passing the impugned order. He, therefore, submits that the
present Writ Petition be dismissed and the petitioner be relegated to
the statutory remedy of filing appeal under the Act, 2019.
4. Heard the learned senior counsels for the parties, perused the
documents and considered the submissions.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has been issued notice
dated 14.11.2024 on a compliant filed by the Additional Director,
Medical Services, Gandhinagar. The wife of the petitioner Dr. Hetal
Patolia, by the communication dated 21.11.2024, had requested for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
time since the relevant documents being case papers of the
treatment relating to the deceased patient as well as reports and
hospital record etc. were in the custody of the Investigating Officer
at the relevant point of time and the Hospital was requested to
make available the same, when it had shown its inability to share
the said documents. It was, therefore, communicated that till the
said documents are received by the petitioner, no proper reply could
be given to the notice dated 14.11.2024 and the complaint. Further,
it is noticed that the petitioner herein came to be arrested in respect
of the FIRs filed against him on 04.12.2024 and was remanded to
the judicial custody till 18.12.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was
lodged in Sabarmati Jail, Ahmedabad. That, by the communication
dated 12.12.2024, the respondent No.1 Council called upon the
petitioner to remain present for hearing on 08.01.2025 with
necessary explanation, treatment related case papers, documents
and medical reports etc. to submit in support of his case. On the
said date, in absence of the petitioner, hearing came to be
completed despite a request for adjournment was made on his
behalf as he was in judicial custody and to obtain the case papers
from the Investigating Agency for making an effective reply to the
complaint. An undated hand-written note was submitted by the wife
of the petitioner, which is alleged to have been obtained from her by
the Executive Committee of the respondent No.1 Council. The said
short note does not deal with the merits of the complaint. While the
petitioner was still in judicial custody, the respondent No.1 Council,
by the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, has removed the name of
the petitioner from the Register of Medical Practitioners maintained
by the Gujarat Medical Council for a period of three years.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
6. The Rule of Natural Justice is not a codified Rule. Natural
Justice is based on administration of justice, which is not in any
watertight classification. In substance, it is to be secured by
ensuring that no person is condemned unheard. The adherence to
the principles of natural justice, as recognized, is of greatest
importance when a quasi-judicial body has to determine the dispute
between the parties or any administrative action involving civil
consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled by catena
of decisions. The first and foremost principle is audi alteram partem.
It forms the core component of natural justice and mandates that no
person should suffer adverse civil consequences without being given
a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Courts have
consistently held that even where a statute does not expressly
provide for a hearing, such a requirement must be read into the
exercise of any power that prejudicially affects rights, livelihood,
reputation, or other civil interests, unless clearly excluded by
express words or necessary implication. This duty to act fairly arises
from the very nature of the decision-making function and applies
equally to administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial actions.
Procedural fairness requires prior notice of the allegations,
disclosure of material relied upon, and an effective opportunity to
present an explanation or defence. Mere formality or post-decisional
justification cannot substitute a real hearing. Where decisions are
taken in haste, urgency alone does not automatically exclude the
application of natural justice, and only in rare cases of extreme
necessity can prior hearing be dispensed with. Even then, fairness
must be ensured to the extent practicable. The scope and manner
of hearing may vary with the context and statutory framework, but
complete denial of hearing in matters involving serious civil
consequences, such as loss of livelihood or stigma, is impermissible.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
It is the approved rule of fair play.
6.1 The principles of natural justice are those rules which have
been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of
the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may
be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority
while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are in the
nature of preventing any authority from doing injustice. Further,
another essential requirement of the principles of natural justice is
to ensure that adjudication must be impartial and that it should give
a full and fair opportunity to the individual to present his case. It
follows the principle that the parties should have an opportunity of
submitting their defense to the authority, by whose decision, they
are to be bound. The rules of natural justice are not always
expressly stated in a statute or in rules framed thereunder. They
may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a
statute and the framework thereof, under which, any inquiry is held.
The basic elements in the principles of natural justice constitute a
fair hearing, fair play and dispensation of justice. Therefore, the rule
of audi alteram partem assumes much significance which means
"hear the other side". Therefore, it is of utmost importance that a
person, who has been put to notice, has to be given a fair
opportunity to reply and put up his case in the proceedings against
him.
7. In the present case, the respondent No.1 Council has the
power to declare the Medical Practitioner guilty of misconduct and
has the power to impose a penalty resulting into removal of his
name from the Register of Medical Practitioners for a substantive
period. Chapter-VI of the Gujarat Medical Council Rules, 1969, lays
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
down the procedure in respect of inquiry to be conducted by the
Gujarat Medical Council against the Registered Medical Practitioner.
Rule 88(1)(c) provides that the Registered Medical Practitioner shall
be invited to state his case by himself or by his legal practitioner
and to produce the evidence in support of it. Rule 90 further
empowers the Council to give further opportunity to the Medical
Practitioner to make oral or written statement. The principles of
natural justice are thus incorporated in the Act and the Rules. In the
present case, the respondent No.1 Council has breached Rule 88(1)
(c) and Rule 90. This Court finds that no adequate opportunity was
given to the petitioner to present his reply before the respondent
No.1 Council. The case papers, hospital record etc. were in the
custody of the Investigating Officer to which the petitioner had no
access and accordingly, it was intimated to the Medical Council
seeking further time to access the same and present the same
before the respondent No.1 Council. Further, on the date of hearing,
the petitioner herein was in judicial custody and was not in a
position to appear before the Council personally to present his case.
Despite the request for time was made on behalf of the petitioner,
no further time was given by the Council to the petitioner for
making an effective reply to the complaint against him. In the
present case, there is a breach of principles of natural justice and
the impugned order has been passed without affording any effective
hearing to the petitioner.
8. The recording of reasons is also an essential and inseparable
component of the principles of natural justice. It is mandatory for
every judicial, quasi-judicial, and even administrative decision that
has civil consequences. A reasoned or speaking order ensures
transparency, fairness, and accountability in decision-making and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
enables the person, adversely affected, to understand why their
submissions were not accepted. The requirement to give reasons
prevents arbitrariness and unconscious bias, as the very process of
reasoning compels the authority to apply its mind to relevant facts,
evidence, and legal principles while excluding extraneous
considerations. An order without reasons reduces the right of
hearing to a mere formality and renders it a meaningless exercise,
since there is no assurance that the authority has genuinely
evaluated the contentions raised. Reasons also provide satisfaction
to the affected party and reinforce public confidence in the justice
delivery system, for justice must not only be done but must also be
seen to be done. An unreasoned decision, even if substantively
correct, may appear unjust, whereas a reasoned decision carries the
appearance of fairness and legitimacy. Further, recording of reasons
is crucial for effective judicial review and appellate scrutiny, as
higher forum cannot assess the legality, correctness, or rationality
of a decision unless the grounds on which it is based are clearly
disclosed. Reasons act as the live link between the mind of the
decision-maker and the conclusions arrived at, substitute objectivity
for subjectivity, and discipline the authority in the exercise of its
power. Non-recording of reasons causes prejudice to the affected
person, impedes their ability to challenge the decision effectively,
and hampers the proper administration of justice. Therefore, the
obligation to pass a reasoned order is a fundamental requirement of
natural justice, and failure to do so vitiates the decision itself.
9. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the
impugned order dated 18.02.2025 is de-hors of any reasoning and
finding. The respondent No.1 Council is obligated to give a finding
that the Medical Practitioner is guilty of misconduct and also provide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
reasons for such a finding. Fairness and Justice demand that the
Registered Medical Practitioner is entitled to know reasons, on the
basis of which, he has been found to be guilty of misconduct as it
invites harsh penalty of removal of his name from the Register of
Medical Practitioners as maintained by the Gujarat Medical Council.
Any such punitive order, which is passed by the Medical Council, has
to be based on cogent findings and reasons, which should be clearly
stated in the order so passed. There has to be a determinative
finding of misconduct against the Medical Practitioner. The reasons
for arriving at such conclusion, so arrived at by the Disciplinary
Committee/State Medical Council, have to be communicated to the
Registered Medical Practitioner, against whom, such proceedings of
misconduct have been initiated. This is more so warranted so that
such a person can exercise his right to effectively challenge the
basis, on which, the State Medical Council has found him guilty. The
impugned order in the present case also does not satisfy this test
and is also, therefore, liable to be set aside on this count.
10. The learned senior counsel Mr. Mitul Shelat for the respondent
No.1 Council has submitted that the petitioner has an alternative
statutory remedy of filing appeal and he may be relegated to the
said remedy. It would be profitable to refer to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Chartered
Accounts of India vs. L. K. Ratna and others [(1986) 4 SCC
537] wherein it has been held as under :-
"17. It is then urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the
provision of an appeal under s. 22-A of the Act is a complete
safeguard against any insufficiency in the original proceeding
before the Council, and it is not mandatory that the member should
be heard by the Council before it proceeds to record its finding.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
Section 22-A of the Act entitles a member to prefer an appeal to the
High Court against an order of the Council imposing a penalty under
s. 21(4) of the Act. It is pointed out that no limitation has been
imposed on the scope of the appeal, and that an appellant is
entitled to urge before the High Court every ground which was
available to him before the Council. Any insufficiency, it is said, can
be cured by resort to such appeal. Learned counsel apparently has
in mind the view taken in some cases that an appeal provides an
adequate remedy for a defect in procedure during the original
proceeding. Some of those cases are mentioned in Sir William
Wades erudite and classic work on "Administrative Law" But as that
learned author observes, "in principle there ought to be an
observance of natural justice equally at both stages", and
"if natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right of appeal is
not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing:
instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to
unfair trial followed by fair trial."
And he makes reference to the observations of Megarry J. in Leary
v. National Union of Vehicle Builders, Treating with another aspect
of the point, that learned Judge said:
"If one accepts the contention that a defect of natural justice in the
trial body can be cured by the presence of natural justice in the
appellate body, this has the result of depriving the member of his
right of appeal from the expelling body. If the rules and the law
combine to give the member the right to a fair trial and the right of
appeal, why should he be told that he ought to be satisfied with an
unjust trial and a fair appeal? Even if the appeal is treated as a
hearing de novo, the member is being stripped of his right to appeal
to another body from the effective decision to expel him. I cannot
think that natural justice is satisfied by a process whereby an unfair
trial, though not resulting in a valid expulsion, will nevertheless
have the effect of depriving the member of his right of appeal when
a valid decision to expel him is subsequently made. Such a
deprivation would be a powerful result to be achieved by what in
law is a mere nullity; and it is no mere triviality that might be
justified on the ground that natural justice does not mean perfect
justice. As a general rule, at all events, I hold that a failure of
natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of
natural justice in an appellate body."
The view taken by Megarry, J. was followed by the Ontario High
Court in Canada in Re Cardinal and Board of Commissioners of
Police of City of Cornwall, [1974] 42 D.L.R. (3d) 323. The Supreme
Court of New Zealand was similarly inclined in Wislang v. Medical
Practioners Disciplinary Committee, [1974] 1 N.Z.L.R. 29 and so was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Reid v. Rowley, [1977] 2
N.Z.L.R. 472.
18. But perhaps another way of looking at the matter lies in
examining the consequences of the initial order as soon as it is
passed. There are cases where an order may cause serious injury as
soon as it is made, an injury not capable of being entirely erased
when the error is corrected on subsequent appeal. For instance, as
in the present case, where a member of a highly respected and
publicly trusted profession is found guilty of misconduct and suffers
penalty, the damage to his professional reputation can be
immediate and far-reaching. "Not all the King's horses and all the
King's men" can ever salvage the situation completely,
notwithstanding the widest scope provided to an appeal. To many a
man, his professional reputation is his most valuable possession. It
affects his standing and dignity among his fellow members in the
profession, and guarantees the esteem of his clientele. It is often
the carefully garnered fruit of a long period of scrupulous,
conscientious and diligent industry. It is the portrait of his
professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blase
attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a man's
professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride. In such a
case, after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to
contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision.
Such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property,
where the execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending
appeal, or a successful appeal may result in refund of the money or
restitution of the property, with appropriate compensation by way
of interest or mesne profits for the period of deprivation. And,
therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure that
there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original
proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute
for the original proceeding."
Therefore, the said contention is also liable to be rejected.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons and observations, the
impugned order dated 18.02.2025 is quashed and set aside. The
respondent No.1 Gujarat Medical Council is directed to decide the
complaint against the petitioner afresh after providing an effective
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No.1
Council shall provide adequate time and opportunity to the
petitioner for giving the detailed explanation and producing the
relevant case papers of treatment, record papers, reports etc. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3934/2025 ORDER DATED: 02/02/2026
undefined
petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions as available
to him in law before the respondent No.1 Council. After strictly
following the principles of natural justice, the respondent No.1
Council shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law dealing
with all the contentions so raised by the petitioner in his defense.
12. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
case and no opinion is expressed thereon.
13. The Special Civil Application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
