1 WP1095'2.05
IN THE I-IXGH COURT OF KARIIATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF BEPTEMIIER. 2008
BEFORE:
mm Hornw nun. JUSTICE n.v. 8HYLERQR'A _
Wni Petition No.109.52 @2005 'V ' Cf: _ ' "
BETWEEN:
DR TONMOY KUMAR EHSWAS
s/0 LATE KALI PADO Bxswaa
36 YEARS, BiSW'AS CLINIC "
snmrsxnu, '- ::
UDUPI _ -. "f~'ié'2'I'iTIONER
[By sn. N 1a=a§}i1:g;;1a:za§1g Adv.]
1 THE KA--RNAT'A!{A'AY'U_RVEDIC AND
UNA Ni .PRACTIT1'0NE.szs--- BOARD,
{CON-'3.'FI"FU3'ED UN KARNATAKA
ACT NC'r.--.9 0?' 1'-L"_62,',_ .~ .
E3HANAVAN'I'H'RI ROAD
.» «BANGALORE 5:39' 009
Q' cE§IT.RA41}-coUNc1LoF HoMEo;=>A'mY
" _ ;;Aw;gHAR'T_N'ir:HRU BHARA'I'iYA CHIKITSA
._AvU.v£~H0MvEoPATHY
A V ANusAN::);:=iAN BHAVAN
"4«.N0%T,.;51-55. INSTITUTIONAL AREA
NEWDELHI 58,
n j BYITS ASST. SECRETARY (ADM 85 REIGN)
* {Z-OVERNMENT OF' KARNATAKA
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
MSEUILDING, BANCEALORE
BY i'I'S UNDER SECRETARY
2 WP10952.05
4 THE BOARD OF HOMEOPATHIC
SYSTEM OF MEDICINE AND
DIREC'I'ORA'I'E OF
HEALTH SERVICES
NAGALAND, KOHIMA
BY ITS REGISTRAR
5 INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL
DIS'FRI_C'I' COMMITTEE 4
unupr _ :
BY ITS CONVENOR
SR: PADMANABHA ACHAFRYA
5 THE SUB INSPECTOR 0? POLICE
UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATIC}?
UDUPI
7 DISTRICT mzuc. coz§?rRQLLEg§'§'»':1'
UDUPI-MANGALORE Q1s'rg1c'1__' I
BALM'ATTIKj;ROKi)"-- " I
MALRGALOREV
8 DIS'I"RICT
UDUPI'D__IS'I'_RI(';'I_' a = _
UDVUPI _ RESPONDENTS
I. [By ‘Sr:E;« ‘Vishwanath, Adv., for
, ‘ , .4 M/s. AGH Associates for R2;
T Muthanna K, AGA for R1, R3, R6-R8;
‘ ‘ ” R5 — Sexvicc held sumcicnt
” ” Vida (3.0. dt€I.12.8.2008]
‘I’iI.IE:-I’$A?II’I’}.I’I’I’ION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF’
i.”.4″‘~.II’}{E CONSTITUTION op mam, PRAYING TO QUASH VIDE ANX. F
‘ gasurzx)’ BY THE R1 THE KARNATAKA AYURVEDIC AND UNANI
TpaAcfr1fr1c>NERs BOARD, BANGALORE DT. 3.3.2905 AND ETC,
THIS PE’FIT’ION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
V’3″* ‘GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWiN(3:–
4 wP1o952.65
52. it is for quashjng of these com1i:u.m.ications__, the
present writ petition. _ _ _ A4
3. Appearing for the petitioner, Sri.
Kamath, learned counsel wonid “.1: in
Notification at Annexure-D issued
Homeopathy Central Council i9?;?3 the i A %
provisions of Chapters 5- il, éibeenwextended
to the States of and
Tripura only that the
petitioner was ‘who was practicing earlier in the
State of he had slaifted to Kernataka
4.. ..even§fiiti1out ‘–reg_ist::’ation requirement; that he should
.T§Iij!(V)V’}/”‘ ., in the State of Karnataka also and
therefore eiiforcement of such regulations which have
‘come it into_ force subsequently even in the State of
ii1.m d from where the petitioner originates cannot be
V’ flenforced in the State of Karnataka where the petitioner is
V V V ‘ . , ifflresently practicing.
5 Z WP1O952.05
4%. Notice had been issued. While respondent is
represented by Sri. Vishwanath, learned co;;2nsuel.,’___j
Sarojini Muthanna, learned Additional.’,_A4_:.. 9»
Advocate appears for respoI1dents__1, 4′ A
5. Statement of objections ‘ been filed bye’ second’ ‘
respondent suppoItingt1_1_e
6. Though SI-i.~. ” counsel
for the support fiom the
in the case of
otrriens as. WEST BENGAL
MEDICAL reported in 2003 AIR
, SCI?” to the Supreme Court had taken
V7__ti1e”view._vthat_there is no requirement of a person to have
as a registered practitioner under Bengal
1914 to issue certificates or prescriptions
were found in the right to treat in terms of a
V’ of Diploma issued in favour of the persons
V .. fholding Diploma in Community Medical Services, the ratio
of the case is not applicable to the facts of the present
§V
5 Wi’10952.03
case for the reason that what the petitioner is seeking to
urge is a right to practice as a Homeopattiy
Practitioner in Homeopathy System of Medicine:
lesser or inferior profession like treat’
the holders of Diploma in
claimed in that case. The clearijfi
on the facts of the it it
7. Be that as it may,_,mo_re —-even assuming
that V at the nonwextension of
c11a.;)ters’l’-léllg’ ‘ Homeopathy Central Council
Act, 197 even a person who had
not been registered.T’as”- aiiomeopathy Practitioner could
fiaveV”oparaiStieetiA in State, a provision of this nature
virhieii is in the nature of a regulatioti does
not enablefiiei petitioner to claim it as a. right in other
wiiere such profession is regulated in terms of
statutory provisions, rules and regulations.
it .:’_4’8-.~- Therefore, While no exception can M taken to the
“communication issued by the respondents, further
7 WPIO952.05
submission of Sri. Ravindraziatli Kamath, learned ccuasel
for the petitioner is that the petitioner in fact«~’I:as’__’___si;cl1e
medical qualification to practice as ..
Practitioner and has applied seekiifig T
9. This is not a matter is inaiie
writ petition. If the petitioner apigjiied,’ it for him
to pursue the matter the authorities, but
in so far as the prayer V;Ar,11’iexures- F 8; G
in this writ pefiti~.§r1._.’is. coxggexneci, prayer is rejected’ and
the mt
it eeeee % Sd/1
Iudgg