[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Milan Mandal vs State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on :13.03.2026
Pronounced on :25.03.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1768 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

SRI MILAN MANDAL,
S/O MUKUNDA MANDAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS,
JAYANAGARA, HIRIYURU,
CHITRADURGA,
KARNATAKA - 577 598.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATHYANARAYANA CHALKE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
HIRIYURU TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
AT BENGALURU - 560 001.
2

2 . SRI VENKATESH G.,
TALUK HEALTH OFFICER,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
HIRIYUR TOWN, CHITRADURGA,
KARNATAKA - 577 598.

3 . VEERESH,
S/O PANDURANGAPPA,
RESIDING AT SANIDEVARAHATTI,
MYAKALURAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRIYURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 577 599.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CRIME NO.237/2025
REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE (HIRIYUR TOWN
POLICE STATION) ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES MADE PENAL U/S.318(2), 319(2)
OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.19 OF THE KARNATAKA PRIVATE MEDICAL
ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2007, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr. Dn.) AND JMFC COURT,
HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.03.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused is before the Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.237 of 2025 registered for

offences punishable under Section 19 of the Karnataka Private

Medical Establishments Act, 2007 and Sections 318(2) and 319(2)

of the BNS.

2. Heard Sri Sathyanarayana Chalke, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned

Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2.

3. Skeletal facts necessary for resolution of the lis are as

follows:

The 2nd respondent/Taluk Health Officer is the complainant. A

complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner alleging

that the 3rd respondent/victim had taken conventional Ayurveda

treatment at the hands of the petitioner for piles (fistula) and
4

suffered a damage to internal sphincter on 21-01-2021 and the

bleeding did not stop for four years. Therefore, he approached the

District Health Officer on 03-11-2025 and on his advice registered a

complaint before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent in turn

registers the complaint with the 1st respondent, the Station House

Officer of Hiriyuru Town Police Station, Chitradurga. It becomes a

crime in Crime No.237 of 2025. Issuance of summons has driven

the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the petitioner has registered his clinic two

decades ago in terms of law. The learned counsel submits that he

has been certified from Anubhavi Mathu Vamshaparamparika

Vaidyara Sangha (R) ('the Sangha' for short) and, therefore, he

becomes a registered medical practitioner entitled to practice

medicine of this kind. Therefore, no fault can be found with the

petitioner, as the certificate of the petitioner also refers to two writ

petitions filed by the Sangha to make the certificate valid of those

persons who are practicing this form of medicine. He would seek

quashment of the crime itself.
5

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor

Sri B.N.Jagadeesha would vehemently refute the submissions in

contending that the petitioner does not hold a degree from any

medical University or Medical College, as the case may be. He

claims to be practicing in Piles (Fistula) clinic on the score that he

has been certified by the Sangha and is entitled to practice. The

learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would further contend

that the complainant had visited this person's clinic who had treated

the complainant with usage of surgical instruments. Therefore, this

is a matter of investigation, as the petitioner is practicing as

medical practitioner without qualification. He would seek dismissal

of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts at this juncture would lie in a

narrow compass. What has driven the petitioner to this Court is the

complaint so registered by the 3rd respondent initially before the 2nd
6

respondent and in turn the 2nd respondent before the 1strespondent.

The complaint made by the 3rd respondent before the 2nd

respondent reads as follows:

"ರವ ೆ

ೕ ಉಪ ೕ ಕರು
ಯೂರು ನಗರ ಾ ೆ
ರಯೂರು

ಇಂದ

ೆಂಕ ೇ .
ಾಲೂ"# ಆ%ೋ ಾ&'(ಾ ಗಳ*
ಯೂರು ಾಲೂ"#
ಯೂರು

+ಾನ&%ೇ

,ಷಯ:- ಯೂರು ನಗರದ ನಯನ ." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ. ಎಂ.(ೆ ಮಂಡ4
ರವರ ,ರುದ5 (ಾನೂನು ೕ6ಯ ಕ7ಮ ಜರು9ಸಲು (ೋ ಮನ,

ಉ;ೆ"ೕಖ:- ;ಾ" ಆ%ೋಗ& ಮತು> ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕ;ಾ& ಾ'(ಾ ಗಳ ಕAೇ Bತ7ದುಗC
ಸಂ:(ೆ.F.ಎಂ.ಇ/05/2025-26 H:03.11.2025
@@@

IೕಲJಂಡ ,ಷಯ Kಾಗೂ ಉ;ೆ"ೕಖ(ೆJ ಸಂಬಂ'Lದಂ ೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮN " ಮನ,
+ಾO(ೊಳ*PವQRೇSೆಂದ%ೆ, ಯೂರು ೌU, ಹುWXಾರು ರYೆ>ಯ ಎ . Z. ಐ. \ಾ&ಂ# ಪಕJದ "ರುವ
ನಯನ ." # ಎಂಬ Kೆಸ ನ " ." # ನ0ೆಸು6>ರುವ ನಯನ ." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ. ಎಂ.(ೆ ಮಂಡ4
ರವರು XಾವQRೇ ,ಶ^,Rಾ&ಲಯHಂದ ೈದ&.ೕಯ ಪದ, ಪ0ೆಯRೆ, (ೆ,F,ಎಂ.ಇ _ಾ7'(ಾರHಂದ
Sೊಂದ`XಾಗRೆ XಾವQRೇ ೈದ&.ೕಯ SೈಪQಣ& ೆbಲ"Rೆ ಆ%ೋಗ& ಇ;ಾcೆbಂದ ಪರ ಾನ ೆ
ಪ0ೆಯRೆ YಾವCಜ ಕ ೆ ೈದ&.ೕಯ B. ೆd ೕಡು6>Rಾe%ೆ Kಾಗೂ ,%ೇಶ ತಂRೆ _ಾಂಡುರಂಗಪf
ಶ Rೇವರಹgh ಮೂ&PÀÆèರಹWP ಾ7ಮ ಯೂರು ಾಲೂ"# ರವ ೆ HSಾಂಕ 21-01-2021 ರಂದು
7

Fಸೂ>4 (ಾb;ೆ ೆ ಅಪ%ೇಷU B. ೆd +ಾOದe ಂದ ಅವನ Internal Spinture Kಾjಾ9ರು ೆ> ಎಂದು
,%ೇಶ ರವರು ನಮN ಕAೇ ೆ ದೂರು ೕOರು ಾ>%ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆk HSಾಂಕ:03.11.2025 ರಂದು +ಾನ& ;ಾ"
ಆ%ೋ ಾ&'(ಾ ಗಳ* 0ಾ. ಎಂ.(ೆ ಮಂಡ4 ರವರ ,ರುದ5 ದೂರು Rಾಖ ಸಲು RೇCಶನ ೕOರು ಾ>%ೆ.
ಆದe ಂದ ಸದ ವ&.> ,ರುದ5 (ಾನೂನು ೕ6ಯ ಕ7ಮ ಜರು9ಸಲು (ೋ Rೆ.

HSಾಂಕ:25.11.2025

ತಮN ,lಾ^L
ಸ /-"

In turn, the 2nd respondent registers a complaint before the

jurisdictional Police. The said complaint reads as follows:

"ಸಂcೆ&:(ೆ.F.ಎಂ.ಇ:05/2025-26 HSಾಂಕ :03-11-2025
Sೆನ
"Sೆನ ೕ;ೆ-1"
ೕ;ೆ

ಇವ ೆ,

ಾಲೂ"ಕು ಆ%ೋ ಾ&'(ಾ ಗಳ*,
ಯೂರು

,ಷಯ : ಯೂರು ನಗರದ ನಯನ ." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ.ಎಂ.(ೆ. ಮಂಡ4
ಇವರ ,ರುದ5ದ ದೂ ನ ಕು ತಂ ೆ ಹ6>ರದ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ "
ಎo.ಐ.ಆp. Rಾಖ ಸುವ ಬ ೆk.

ಉ;ೆ"ೕಖ: ಈ ಕqೇ ಪತ7 ಸಂ: .ಆ.ಕು.ಕ/ದೂರು/12/2025-26, H:16-08-
2025
---<<>>---

IೕಲJಂಡ ,ಷಯ(ೆJ ಸಂಬಂ'Lದಂ ೆ, ಉ;ೆ"ೕrತ ಪತ7ದ " ಯೂರು ನಗರದ ನಯನ
." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ.ಎಂ.(ೆ. ಮಂಡ4 ಇವರ ,ರುದ5 ದೂರು ಸ "(ೆXಾದ Sೆs;ೆಯ ", ಕೂಡ;ೇ
(ೆ.F.ಎಂ.ಇ. (ಾte ಯಮಗಳ ಅOಯ " ಸದ cಾಸ9 ." # ೆ uೇg ೕO, ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟh ಎ;ಾ"
8

Rಾಖ;ಾ6ಗಳನುs ಪ wೕಲSೆ +ಾO ಸೂಕ> (ಾನೂನು ಕ7ಮವ ಸಲು ಸೂBಸು ಾ> ೆ ೆದು(ೊಂಡ ಕ7ಮದ
ಬ ೆk ಈ ಕAೇ ೆ ವರH ೕಡಲು 6Wಸ;ಾ9ರುತ>Rೆ.

HSಾಂಕ:29.10.2025ರಂದು ಯೂರು ಾಲೂ"ಕು ಮಟhದ (ೆ.F.ಎಂ.ಇ. ಉಪ ಸx6
ತಂಡವQ ಯೂರು ನಗರದ ನಯನ ." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ.ಎಂ
0ಾ ಎಂ.(ೆ
ಎಂ (ೆ.
(ೆ ಮಂಡ4 ಇವರ cಾಸ9 ." # ೆ
uೇg ೕOದ ಸಂದಭCದ " ." # ಮುBzದುe, ಉಪ ಸx6 ತಂಡದ ಸಮ ಮದ ಮುಂRೆ ನಯನ ." # ೆ
Zೕಗ Kಾ. Lೕ{ +ಾOರುವQRಾ9 +ಾ 6ಯನುs ೕOರು6>ೕ .

ಆದ%ೆ ಸದ ನಯನ ." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ.ಎಂ
0ಾ ಎಂ.(ೆ
ಎಂ (ೆ.
(ೆ ಮಂಡ4 ಇವರ Iೕ;ೆ ಎo.ಐ.ಆp.
Rಾಖ Lರುವ ಬ ೆk +ಾ 6ಯನುs ಸ "LರುವQHಲ". ಆದe ಂದ (ೆ.F.ಎಂ.ಇ. (ಾte ಯಮದ ಅOಯ "
ಸದ ನಯನ ." # ೈದ&%ಾದ 0ಾ.ಎಂ
0ಾ ಎಂ.(ೆ
ಎಂ (ೆ.
(ೆ ಮಂಡ4 ಇವರ Iೕ;ೆ ಸxೕಪದ ೕ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ "
ಾಲೂ"ಕು ಸ ಮ _ಾ7'(ಾ ಗjಾದ ೕವQ ತು ಾC9 ಎo.ಐ.ಆp Rಾಖ L ನಕಲು ಪ76ಯನುs
ದೃOೕಕ L ;ಾ" ಸ ಮ _ಾ7'(ಾರ ((ೆ.F.ಎಂ.ಇ.)(ೆJ ಸ "ಸುವಂ ೆ ಸೂBLRೆ.

ಸ /-
;ಾ" ಆ%ೋಗ& ಮತು> ಕುಟುಂಬ ಕ;ಾ&ಣ ಅ'(ಾ ಗಳ*,
Bತ7ದುಗC"

This becomes a crime in Crime No.237 of 2025 for the afore-quoted

offences. The contention of the petitioner is that he is empowered

by the judgments rendered by the coordinate Benches of this Court

and is entitled to practice.

8. The order dated 23-06-2017 passed by the coordinate

Bench in Writ Petition No.36244 of 2011 reads as follows:

"Sri K.Govindaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner Sangha would be content if a
direction is given to the first respondent to consider the
petitioner's representations (Annexure-G series) for permitting
its members to practise medicine.
9

2. Sri O.Shivarama Bhat, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.5 submits that if the petitioner's
representations are pending consideration, the same would be
considered in accordance with law. He submits that the
members of the petitioner Sangha do not have the requisite
qualification to practise medicine.

3. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's said
representations in question in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of
two months from the date of the issuance of the certified copy
of today's order. It is made clear that no opinion whatsoever is
expressed on the merits of the claims of the petitioner Sangha.

4. No order as to costs."

The order dated 17-02-2023 passed by another coordinate Bench in

Writ Petition No.51465 of 2019 reads as follows:

"The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to take action to protect
traditional medical practitioners/improve their knowledge and
skill as per Government order dated 21/02/2017 and
communication dated 04/03/2017 as per Annexures - L and M
respectively and also sought a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to hear and consider the petitioner's grievances
while implementing the Government order and communication
as per Annexures - L and M.

2. Sri. Govindaraj K, learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that grievance of the petitioner would be meted if
the representations of the petitioner which are presented before
the considered in respondent-authority, are considered in
accordance with law.
10

3. Per contra, Sri. N. Kumar, learned Additional
Government Advocate would submit that the representation at
Annexure-N3 is not given to the Registration Grievance and
Redressal Authority, which consists of three members and same
is not in accordance with Section 3 of the Karnataka Private
Medical Establishment Act, 2007. Learned AGA would contend
that if the representations is given to the authorities as
mentioned under Section 4 of the Karnataka Private Medical
Establishment Act, 2007, the same would be considered in
accordance with law and further submit that if reasonable time
is accorded to the respondent-authority, the said
representations of the petitioner would be considered by the
authorities in accordance with law.

4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the representation by the petitioner
in their individual capacity would be submitted to Registration
and Grievance Redressal Authority as enumerated under Section
4 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007, in
accordance with law.

5. The said submission of learned counsel for both the
parties are placed on record.

6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed in part.

ii. Petitioner to submit the representation at Annexures - N1 to N3 before the authority as enumerated under Section 4 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

iii. Petitioners is at liberty to produce any additional documents in support of their contentions along with the representation.

iv. On such representation being submitted, the concerned authority to consider and pass appropriate orders, taking into consideration the Government Order dated 21.02.2017 at Annexure- L and communication dated 04.03.2017 at Annexure-M, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of eight weeks, thereafter, from the date or receipt of representation of the petitioner.

All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the concerned authorities.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of."

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

draws strength from the aforesaid orders. In both the orders only

directions were issued to consider the representation of the Sangha

which claimed that the practitioners registered before it were

entitled to practice in terms of the Karnataka Private Medical

Establishments Act, 2007 as well and it is submitted that the

certificates issued by the Sangha are all valid and no crime can be

registered on that count. The said submission is noted only to be

rejected. The certificate issued to the petitioner reads as follows:

All that the certificates narrates is the order passed in the writ

petition. But, what is the qualification of the petitioner is nowhere

mentioned and how does he have experience in treating fistula or to

call himself as a registered medical practitioner is not stated.

Therefore, the petitioner is undoubtedly practicing without

qualification. Whether he is even tenth standard or otherwise is not

known. Both the certificates appended to the petition only read the

orders passed by the coordinate Benches quoted supra.

10. Quacks opening clinics and treating patients without any

qualification has become rampant. The petitioner calls himself as

Dr. M.K.Mandal; a doctor without any qualification whatsoever. At

the time of search of the clinic, the materials seized would clearly

indicate that they were being used for surgeries. When the

petitioner does not have qualification, it is ununderstandable as to

how he can call himself a doctor on a certificate issued by some

Sangha and project himself to be a registered medical practitioner.

Where has he registered to call himself so is a mystery. The

petitioner has not produced a piece of paper depicting his

qualification to practice, before this Court. In identical

circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition No.33364 of 2024 by

order dated 17-03-2025 has held as follows:

".... .... ....

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The Act is bought into effect in the year 2007 and the Rules thereon in the year 2009. Section 3 and Rule 5 which are germane for consideration, read as follows:

"Section 3. Registration of Private Medical Establishments.- On and after the appointed day, no Private Medical Establishment shall be established, run or maintained in the State except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of registration granted under this Act:

Provided that a Private Medical Establishment in existence immediately prior to the appointed day shall apply for such registration within ninety days from the appointed day and pending orders thereon may continue to run or maintain till the disposal of the application."

"Rule 5. Conditions of registration:-

(1) The registration granted under these rules to every Private medical establishment shall be subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) Premises shall be located in clean surroundings in a hygienic area.

(ii) Adequate lighting and ventilation shall be ensured within the building and in the premises.

(iii) Adequate number of Toilet Rooms, shall be provided, separately for male and female patients.

(iv) Record Room adequate enough for Maintenance of Medical records as per code of Medical Ethics shall be provided.

(v) Standard Bio-Medical Waste Disposal System shall be provided appropriate to the volume and nature of Waste generated.

(vi) Accessibility to attending Doctors by Telephone, fax and e-mail through the Establishment shall be ensured to each patient/their attendants.

(vii) CME-compliance mechanism as per the Karnataka Medical Council Act as amended from time to time shall be kept up.

(viii) Qualified and experienced staff appropriate to each field such as medical, diagnostic, therapeutic, observational and other care peculiar to each specialty and in appropriate numbers shall be appointed proportional to the number of patients ordinarily treated in a day.

(ix) Display conspicuously and in a prominent place or places.
         (a)    The name of the Establishment with
                names of the owners/managers.
         (b)    Registration certificate issued by the
                respective State Medical Council.
         (c)    Form of License issued from the
Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Board.

(d) System of Medicine practiced and services available.

(e) Working hours/timings of each Unit of the Establishment.

(f) Charges/Consultation/diagnosis/ treatment/ reports/services/other procedures and room rent/bed charges etc. in the form of Chart exhibited at a convenient place or places for.

(g) Printed brochures of the rates and tariff shall be supplied to the patients or their attendants on request.

(h) Names and qualifications of visiting consultants and Doctors employed for diagnosing/advising/treating the patients.

(x) Generate, maintain and document Medical Records of each patient as per rules in force and supply to the patient or his parent/Guardian/Legal Representatives/ attendants on request.

(xi) Give proper Discharge Summary to each patient along with the Bill of charges.

(xii) Ensure that every Doctor employed by it would provide First Aid, would attend Medico-Legal Cases promptly and otherwise follow the Code of Medical Ethics, rigidly.

(xiii) Inform the Doctors/Consultants on roll and see to it that professional responsibility rests with the Doctor/ Consultant in charge of the patient, and

(xiv) Comply with such other directives issued by the Government or the District Registering Authority."

The petitioner claiming to be practicing medicine Ayurveda or otherwise submits an application before the third respondent. In terms of the Rules, the application should also accompany the list of staffs in the establishment for it to be registered of whatever stream of medicine that the application would seek registration of. The application of the petitioner is as follows:

"GENERAL INFORMATION Computer Registration Number: 49314 Application Number: 39378

Establishment Name: SRI LAKSHMI CLINIC Address: Modur, BookanakareHobli K.R Pete Taluk, Mandya District-571426"

The staff list appended to the application is very surprising, it reads as follows:

"STAFF LIST

Dr.A.A. Proprietor [email protected] 9743041355 Muralidharswamy Dr.A.A. Administration [email protected] 9743041355

Muralidharswamy Dr.A.A. Full time 9743041355 Muralidharswamy

The petitioner addresses himself as a Doctor. He is the proprietor of Lakshmi clinic; he is the administrator of Lakshmi clinic and he is a full time employee of Lakshmi clinic. There is no other staff in the clinic. Therefore, the petitioner is running a one man clinic. The averment in the petition is as follows:

"2. The petitioner submits that he has got the certificate from Indian Board of Alternative Medicines registered by the Government of West Bengal Act XXVI of 1961 based on Central Government Act XXI of 1860. The petitioner has qualified requirement and certificate has been issued as he is qualified requirement and certificate has been issued as he is qualified Bachelor of Alternative system of Medicines with all the rights, honours and privileges pertaining to this certificate in testimony whereof Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and issued the same by Registrar, Alternative Medical Council of Calcutta on 09.01.2001 at Registration No.IBAM/RMP/A 14105 and in future called as Registration Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and same is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-

A. The petitioner has also completed qualification of Alternative Medicines and started the clinic with the permission of License issued by Town Municipality Authorities and also got the certificate from Karnataka State Pollution Control Board."

It is the averment in the petition that the petitioner has a certificate from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines and on the strength of the said certificate, he has secured a Diploma in Community Medicine. The further averment with regard to acquisition of Diploma in the petition is as follows:

"3. The petitioner further submits that in continuation of his practice in Diploma in Community in Medical Serivces with Essential

Drugs by establishing the clinic called as "Sri Lakshmi Clinic", Modur, BookanakareHobli, K.R. Pete Taluk, Mandya District-571426 and he has practicing since from several years."

The petitioner claims to have been practicing medicine for several years and he describe himself as "Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy".

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance upon several orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, where this Court has directed the third respondent to consider those applications, in accordance with law and till such consideration, the functioning of the clinic should not be disturbed. He would seek to place reliance upon those very orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches to buttress his submission that he is also entitled to the very relief that is granted by the Co-ordinate Benches. The Co-ordinate Benches in W.P.No.28910/2015 c/w W.P.No.25188/2015 disposed on 31.01.2017 has held as follows:

"3. The petitioners are medical practitioners practicing in various forms of medical science and in which they have completed practical Training in various medicine courses from different institutions. The Karnataka Private Medical Registration Act was introduced in the year 2007.

4. The petitioners submitted applications for registration on various dates. Since, there is inaction on the part of respondent-concerned authority, petitioners were compelled to approach this Court in W.P.No.435/2015 and it was decided on 13/04/2015, while directing the 3rd respondent to take note of the petitioners application for registration. Pursuant to such directions, impugned communications have been made by the 3rd respondent while canceling the petitioners polyclinic as unauthorized.

5. Perusal of impugned communications Annexures-'E' and 'J' dated 15/05/2015, it is crystal clear that, before cancellation of petitioners running polyclinic, petitioners have not been heard and they have not provided opportunity of hearing. Time and again courts have held that authority who takes any

action or passes an order, which is affecting the right of a person, in such an event, the person who is likely to be affected should be heard in the matter. The 3rd respondent has failed to take note of relevant provisions namely, Section 7 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007. Thus, the 3rd respondent being a Class-I officer has failed to take note that an opportunity should have been given to each one of the petitioner. Since, petitioners were not afforded hearing and side tracked the aforesaid provisions and so also in not providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, impugned communications have been made. Issue before the 3rd respondent was whether petitioners application for Registration was in order or not? If the petitioners do not fulfill any of the criteria, in such circumstances notice should have been issued while calling for explanation from each of the petitioner before passing any adverse order. Accordingly, Annexures-'E' and 'J' dated 15.05.2015, are set aside.

6. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.

7. Petitioner is entitled to continue the polyclinic till further action is taken by the concerned respondent.

8. The 3rd respondent/author of the document/Annexures-'E' and 'J' dated 15.05.2015, are liable to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Bengaluru from his/her pocket and not from the Department for trivial error committed by him in not giving opportunity to the petitioner and so also in not applying his mind to the extent of Section (7) of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act.

9. When an order is passed in violation of principle of natural justice is set aside, the fresh order can be passed after complying with the principle of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai Mansinghbhai Chaudhary Vs. State of Gujarath & Another reported in (2017) 13 SCC 51.

10. Costs shall be remitted within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order reserving liberty to the 3rd respondent to proceed in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

In view of the disposal of main petitions, pending I.A(s) if any, are disposed of."

In W.P.No.62158/2016 disposed on 31.01.2017 has held as follows:

"3. The petitioner claims that he is a medical practitioner practicing in various forms of Medical Science. In view of the requirement under the Private Establishment Act, 2007 to register himself, the petitioner has made an application seeking registration. Since, the application has not been considered in accordance with law, the petitioner is before this Court. It is also averred that the respondents without considering the application are interfering with his practice and therefore, the application needs to be considered expeditiously.

4. The fact that the said application requires to be made and the same requires consideration by the 3rd respondent is not disputed by the respondents. In fact in similar set of circumstance, this Court in W.P.No.47102- 104/11 and connected petition has by its order dated 14.03.2012 directed consideration of such application. In any event, in the instant case, when the petitioner has made an application under the relevant Act, there is a duty cast on the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the application. Without considering the application, certainly the 3rd respondent would not be entitled to interfere in the practice of the petitioner.

5. In the event, the application requires consideration by any other authority, the 3rd respondent shall transfer the application on such authority, who shall consider and dispose of the application in accordance with the directions issued.

6. Hence, a direction is issued to the 3rd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. Such consideration shall not be later than three months from the date of furnishing a copy of this order. Needless to mention that until the consideration of the application, the practice of the petitioner shall not be interfered with.

The petition is disposed of accordingly."

He would seek an identical relief contending that he is also a Doctor, his clinic has to be registered and he is practicing alternative form of medicine.

11. In the light of the aforesaid submission and the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches quoted supra, this Court directed production of documents to the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner is qualified to get his clinic registered under the Act, as he has throughout described himself as "Dr. A.A. Muralidharswamy".

12. The matter was adjourned on three occasions to enable the petitioner to produce certificates, which would depict his qualification to practice any stream of medicine. The petitioner has failed to do so. On a pointed query, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he is candid in accepting that the petitioner is only an SSLC and has not secured qualification in any stream, either Ayurveda, Allopathy or Unani, that would give him a right for registration under the Act or the Rules. The only certificate that the petitioner holds is a certificate said to have been issued by Indian Board of Alternative Medicine, that is wayback on 09.01.2001. The certificate does not inspire any confidence, as there is no qualification indicated in the certificate.

13. The learned counsel submits on the strength of the certificate, he has begun practicing 15years ago, but he has the qualification only of an SSLC. Therefore, the petitioner, who calls himself a Doctor is only SSLC and is practicing different kinds of medicines in the aforesaid clinic.

14. It is these quacks, who project themselves to be Doctors are endangering the life of innocent rural people, by opening clinics in remote areas and hoodwinking them. Such instances have grown exponentially, which has resulted in mushrooming of such clinics all over, opened by the persons projecting themselves to be Doctors. It is un-understandable as to how the State is in blissful ignorance towards proliferation of such clinics without initiating any action. Therefore, it is for the State to immediately act, identify such clinics and pull the

curtains down of those clinics, which are run by quacks like the case at hand, all in accordance with law......"

This Bench, in the afore-quoted order, has extensively considered

the claim of doctors in identical circumstances and has directed the

State to plug all fake doctors or quacks and pull the curtain down of

those clinics. The petitioner's clinic is one such. Therefore, there is

no warrant to interfere in the case at hand. Investigation is a must

in the least.

11. Petition lacking in merit stands rejected.

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2026 stands disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

Bkp CT:MJ