IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25585 of 2006(U)
1. V.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.K.VIDYADHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRAVANCORE COCHIN MEDICAL COUNCIL,
... Respondent
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, NAIMISARANYAM,
5. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/09/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P (C) No. 25585 OF 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 17th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is mainly challenging Ext. P8 issued by the first
respondent, directing the second respondent to launch prosecution
proceedings against the petitioner, who is allegedly practising as an
‘Ayurvedic Doctor’ without the requisite qualification.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is running a centre under the name and style as ‘Centre for Naturopathy
Ayurveda and Yogic Sciences’ and is ‘not offering any treatment in
Ayurveda but for giving necessary advice by virtue of his Diploma and the
certificates obtained in ‘Naturopathy and Yogic Science’, as borne by Exts.
P1 and P2. It is also stated that, Ayurvedic treatment in the institution is
being offered by one Dr. P.K. Karunakaran, who is duly qualified, by virtue
of Ext. P3 Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine.
3. When the petitioner was required to be present before the police
station, he was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.
17829 of 2006, complaining against the police harassment, which led to
Ext. P2 verdict, wherein the statement made from the part of police that
there was absolutely no question of harassment, but for an enquiry which
W.P. (C) No. 25585 of 2006
2
was being pursued pursuant to a complaint, was recorded and the Writ
Petition was closed on 14.07.2006. Thereafter, Ext. P6 notice was issued
by the first respondent to the petitioner, which was replied by Ext. P7 and
presumably for the reason that it was satisfactory, no further action was
pursued thereafter. In the meanwhile, Ext. P8 requisition was made by the
first respondent to the Superintendent of Police i.e. the second respondent,
on the basis of some other complaints alleging that the petitioner was
providing treatment in Ayurvedic medicine without any qualification, which
made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition
seeking to quash Ext. P8.
4. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit, explaining the
facts and circumstances, stating that, pursuant to the complaint received,
Ext. P1 (a) instruction was issued to the second respondent to take
appropriate measures, if the petitioner was pursuing any such exercise
without qualification. However, on receipt of the explanation from the
petitioner, pursuant to the notice issued, the first respondent constituted a
‘Committee’ to conduct surprise inspection at the premises of the petitioner
to ascertain whether the petitioner was providing any treatment by himself
without requisite qualification, simultaneously directing the second
respondent to keep further proceedings pursuant to Ext. R1(a) in
abeyance. A copy of the said proceeding is produced and marked as Ext.
W.P. (C) No. 25585 of 2006
3
R1(b). The first respondent submits that no adverse circumstances have
come to the notice of the first respondent in this regard and as such, no
further steps have been taken against the petitioner.
5. In the above circumstances, the submission made as above is
recorded and the Writ Petition is closed; however without prejudice to the
rights of the petitioner to approach this Court, if and when necessitated in
connection with the alleged cause of action. It is also made clear that the
petitioner shall not pursue any activities contrary to the relevant provisions
of the law, including by providing any treatment in Ayurveda or other
relevant fields of medicine, for which the petitioner is not qualified.
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd