Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a doctor, challenged a notice dated 19.09.2011 issued by respondent No.3 holding him not qualified to practice medicine and directing closure of his medical clinic. He also challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. The court noted that this writ petition was almost similar to W.P.Nos.67132-67133/2011, which were dismissed on the same day. The petitioner's counsel argued that the proviso was unconstitutional as contrary to the Act. However, the court, following its earlier decision, dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the proviso and the notice.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Legislation - Proviso to Section 3 of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 - Challenge to constitutional validity - Petitioner challenged the proviso as unconstitutional - Court dismissed the petition following its decision in similar W.P.Nos.67132-67133/2011 - Held that the proviso is valid and the notice to close clinic is justified (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 is unconstitutional and whether the notice directing the petitioner to close his medical clinic is valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of proviso to Section 3 of Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act
- 2007
- Qualification to practice medicine
- Closure of medical clinic
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (04) 14
W.P. No.67185/2011 (GM-RES)
R H Angadi, Harish S Nayak (for petitioner); Ravi V Hosamani (for respondents)
State of Karnataka, Ayurvedic & Unani Practitioners Board, District Health and Family Welfare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice and constitutional validity of a statutory provision.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought declaration that proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 is unconstitutional and quashing of notice dated 19.09.2011 directing closure of his medical clinic.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was held not qualified to practice medicine and directed to close his medical clinic by the notice.
Previous Decisions
Similar writ petitions W.P.Nos.67132-67133/2011 were dismissed by the same court on the same day.
Issues
Whether the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 is unconstitutional.
Whether the notice dated 19.09.2011 directing closure of the petitioner's medical clinic is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 is unconstitutional as it is contrary to the Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 is not unconstitutional; the notice directing closure of the medical clinic is valid. The court followed its decision in similar writ petitions.
Judgment Excerpts
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 19.9.2011 (Annexure-B) issued by respondent No.3 wherein the petitioner has been held to be not qualified to practice medicine, and hence, he is directed to close his medical clinic.
This writ petition is almost similar to W.P.Nos.67132-67133/2011 which is dismissed today by this Court.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a notice dated 19.09.2011 and the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 3 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 22.04.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007: Section 3, proviso to Section 3
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
