JUDGMENT
M.C. Jain, J.
1. The appellant-Om Sharma seeks to prefer this contempt appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order dated 2.5.2006 passed by Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J. on Application No. 782 of 2006 in Contempt Petition No. 820 of 2002, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. A.P. Verma. The relief prayed for is for setting aside the said order dated 2.5.2006. The appellant also prays that his application for registration of Hari Eye Hospital, Agra Road, Hathras be allowed.
2. We have heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record. The background be taken note of. The impugned order came to be passed while monitoring the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P. . The matter pertains to the methods adopted by quacks in dodging the authorities in carrying out their activities in medical field. An application was filed by Sri Hari Eye Hospital, Agra Road, Hathras through its Secretary Om Sharma (Appellant), who professed himself to be a doctor and an eye specialist. An inquiry was initiated. The Chief Medical Officer submitted his report that eye operations were being carried out in the said hospital but the records were not maintained. The intervener Saurabh Agarwal contended that the applicant was only an optometrist. He was, however, holding Eye Camps performing eye operations without any qualifications. Hari Eye Hospital was an old trust which had allegedly been grabbed by the appellant a self styled doctor who also claimed himself to be the Medical Superintendent, Director, Secretary and the Chief Medical Officer of the Trust as per the exigency of the situation. Qualified doctors in the District also made repeated complaints against the appellant regarding this activities of performing operations and holding camps without any qualification. So, orders were issued directing the Chief Medical Officer to make inquiry. The appellant Om Sharma produced a Diploma of Optometry (1965) of the State Medical Faculty, U.P. which was verified and found to be valid. However, the said Diploma did hot clothe him with qualifications for treatment as eye specialist and to perform surgical operations. In his application for registration with the Chief Medical Officer, the appellant had not provided any information about himself except that he was in-charge of the Hospital. The name of the doctor working in the hospital was disclosed as Dr. Lai Chand, MBBS MS, Opthomology with registration No. 14380. The factum of Dr. Lal Chand being qualified medical practitioner was not denied from the side of the intervenor but it was submitted that he was practising at Agra where he had a nursing home. On inspection, the appellant could not produce any operation register and Dr. Lal Chand was also not found present. One Swarn Lata Jain appeared in Court in dark glasses and stated that Sri Om Sharma claiming himself to be a doctor as eye specialist had treated her without taking any care or caution. She developed severe complications and complained to the Chief Medical Officer but no action was taken. It happened in 1988. She could not recover and her treatment was still going on. It was alleged that some complaints had also been made against Om Sharma to the Consumer Forum.
3. Before the learned Single Judge, another degree of the appellant Om Sharma, namely, Doctor of Science in Ayurveda from Jhansi Ayurvedic Vishwavidyalaya dated 25.5.1973 was produced to contend that he was also a doctor in Ayurved. It was wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the appellant practising as eye specialist and performing surgical operations.
4. The Hon’ble Single Judge rejected the application of the appellant Om Sharma for registration of his Eye Hospital. Instead, he ordered the Chief Medical Officer, Hathras to seal Hari Eye Hospital and the District Magistrate and S.S.P. Hathras were directed to ensure that no activities of treatment of eye or eye operations are carried out In the said Hospital. The Chief Medical Officer was also directed to register a criminal case against the appellant Om Sharma under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and under Section 420 and other provisions of I.P.C.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no such order could be passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and the appeal very well lies under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Hon’ble Single Judge, the counsel argued, could only punish the appellant for contempt in the manner provided under the Contempt of Courts Act. Punishment, he urged, is provided by Section 12 of the Act.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. The sum and substance of the impugned order of the Hon’ble Single Judge sought to be quashed in this appeal is that the application of the appellant for registration of his Eye Hospital has been rejected; his alleged hospital, where he has been operating as eye specialist and even performing surgical operations without any degree or qualification, has been ordered to be sealed and a criminal case has been ordered to be registered against him. We are definitely of the opinion that the impugned order is perfectly justified which cannot at all be flawed. The appellant cannot be heard with the aid of hyper-technicality that as he has not been punished as per Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the said Act. This Court the highest justice dispensation apparatus in the State could not ignore or look the other way when in a matter before it a grave mischief came to its notice which was fraught with serious consequences adversely affecting the medical care of the public relating to eye ailments, i.e., the appellant practicing as an eye specialist and performing surgical operations without proper degree or qualifications.
7. Learned Counsel then argued that the Hon’ble Single Judge has already recorded a finding against the appellant. It does not seem to be so. Relating the facts and background, the Hon’ble Single Judge has justifiably concluded that the application of the appellant for registration was liable to be rejected. At the same time, he has ordered for sealing the eye hospital in question so as to prevent continuance of the mischief with the further proper direction of registering F.I.R. to initiate criminal case against the appellant. On our pointed enquiry, the learned Counsel for the appellant informed that the F.I.R. has already been registered against the appellant in consequence of the impugned order. Naturally, the investigation would follow. The Hon’ble Single Judge has simply set the feet of law on its usual course. The truth of the matter is that the appellant is eluding the hands of law and is designing to forestall the investigation under the cover of this appeal by challenging the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge which we find to be perfectly justified.
8. There is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.