2000 JTR(SC) 856
2000 4 ALT(SC) 81 ; 2000 2 AndhWR(SC) 49 ; 2000 3 AWC 1845 ; 2000 5 JT 211 ; 2000 3 PLJR(SC) 54 ; 2000 4 Scale 72 ; 2000 5 SCC 80 ; 2000 3 SCR 525 ; 2000 2 SCT 774 ; 2000 2 SLR 786 ; 2000 2 UJ 1013 ; 2000 2 UPLBEC 1596 ; 2000 KHC 1176 ; 2000 1 KLT(Online) 940 ; 2000 3 Supreme 552
2000(3) Supreme 552
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Phukan, JJ.
D.K. Joshi -Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 1996
Decided
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : T.B. Padhyay, Sanjay Parikh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Subodh Markandaya, Sr. Advocate, Irshad Ahmed, R.B. Misra, Ms. Feroza Bana, Advocates.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
INDIAN MEDICAL CENTRAL COUNCIL ACT : S.17
MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT : S.15
UTTAR PRADESH MEDICAL ACT : S.30
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Constitution of India, Article 136, the Medical Council Act, Section 15, the Indian Medical Central Council Act, Section 17, and the United Provinces Medical Act, Section 30, establishes the legal basis for regulating medical practice and empowering authorities to enforce professional standards. These provisions were invoked to address the public health menace of unqualified and unregistered practitioners operating without authorization, as the State has a duty to protect public health under these laws. The correspondence from the Indian Medical Council and State Government directives highlighted the necessity for strict action against such practitioners, emphasizing the need for active enforcement rather than mere administrative inaction.
(B) Key legal principles include the obligation of state authorities to actively monitor and enforce medical profession regulations, the requirement of follow-up action on identified violations, and the duty to publicly disclose information to prevent public deception. The case underscores that forwarding complaints to lower agencies without ensuring compliance is insufficient.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a public interest writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to take action against unqualified and unauthorized medical practitioners in Agra district, Uttar Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing that a pending inquiry by the Chief Medical Officer would address the issue, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the reply affidavit confirmed the presence of unqualified practitioners who had ceased practice in Agra but relocated to neighboring districts. It noted a sad state of administration where authorities only forwarded names to District Magistrates without taking further action, despite State Government instructions and legal provisions.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the High Court could dismiss the petition in limine and whether passive forwarding of information satisfied the statutory duty to combat unauthorized medical practice.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that mere identification and forwarding of unqualified practitioners to District Magistrates, without initiating legal action or ensuring compliance, constitutes a failure to act in accordance with law, necessitating statewide directions to enforce regulations effectively.
Result:
The impugned judgment was set aside, and the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. was directed to identify and take legal action against all unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners across the state, monitor proceedings, and publicly disclose their names.
(A) The relevant statutory framework under the Constitution of India, Article 136, the Medical Council Act, Section 15, the Indian Medical Central Council Act, Section 17, and the United Provinces Medical Act, Section 30, establishes the legal basis for regulating medical practice and empowering authorities to enforce professional standards. These provisions were invoked to address the public health menace of unqualified and unregistered practitioners operating without authorization, as the State has a duty to protect public health under these laws. The correspondence from the Indian Medical Council and State Government directives highlighted the necessity for strict action against such practitioners, emphasizing the need for active enforcement rather than mere administrative inaction.
(B) Key legal principles include the obligation of state authorities to actively monitor and enforce medical profession regulations, the requirement of follow-up action on identified violations, and the duty to publicly disclose information to prevent public deception. The case underscores that forwarding complaints to lower agencies without ensuring compliance is insufficient.
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a public interest writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to take action against unqualified and unauthorized medical practitioners in Agra district, Uttar Pradesh. The High Court dismissed the petition, observing that a pending inquiry by the Chief Medical Officer would address the issue, prompting this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the reply affidavit confirmed the presence of unqualified practitioners who had ceased practice in Agra but relocated to neighboring districts. It noted a sad state of administration where authorities only forwarded names to District Magistrates without taking further action, despite State Government instructions and legal provisions.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the High Court could dismiss the petition in limine and whether passive forwarding of information satisfied the statutory duty to combat unauthorized medical practice.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that mere identification and forwarding of unqualified practitioners to District Magistrates, without initiating legal action or ensuring compliance, constitutes a failure to act in accordance with law, necessitating statewide directions to enforce regulations effectively.
Result:
The impugned judgment was set aside, and the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. was directed to identify and take legal action against all unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners across the state, monitor proceedings, and publicly disclose their names.
JUDGMENT
Phukan, J.-The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad in public interest praying for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate action against persons who are unqualified and unregistered but carrying on medical profession unauthorisedly in the district of Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the petition in limine with the observation that the Chief Medical Officer, Agra would complete the inquiry which was pending in accordance with law. The present appeal is against the said order of the High Court.
2. Though in the appeal, the State of U.P., the Director General, Medical and Health Services, U.P., the Additional Director, Medical & Health, Agra and the Chief Medical Officer, Agra have been impleaded as respondents, only one affidavit has been filed on behalf of all respondents by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Agra. In the reply affidavit, the allegation that such unqualified persons are carrying on medical profession, is not denied. However, it has been stated inter alia that some such unqualified medical practitioners were identified and the reports were sent to the District Magistrate. According to the deponent such unqualified persons stopped medical practice in the district of Agra and have shifted to nearby districts. We are constrained to observe that reply affidavit discloses as sad state of affairs of the administration. Instead of taking action against these unqualified medical practitioners in accordance with law and as per instructions of the State Government to which we shall presently refer their names were only forwarded to District Magistrate without any follow up action by the authorities.
3. From the letter of Indian Medical Council dated 3.5.91, which is on record, we find that the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State Government was apprised by the Medical Council of this problem in the State and it was emphasized in the said letter that these persons were openly playing with the health of public. The Secretary was requested that "public may be relieved by taking strict action against unqualified/unregistered practitioners and institutions which are providing illegal degrees in Indian System of Medicine." The State Government was also concerned with this problem and the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department as for back as on 2nd December, 1995 addressed a letter to all District Magistrates and Chief Medical Officers of the State drawing their attention to the legal provisions for taking appropriate action against such unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners. In the letter attention was drawn to Section 15 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, Section 17 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 and Section 30 of the United Provinces Medical Act, 1917. The District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers were also advised how to initiate criminal action against these unauthorised practitioners.
4. It is distressing to note that in spite of above direction of the State Government, the District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers did not take effective steps to stop this menace which is hazardous to human life. As indicated above, the Chief Medical Officers only forwarded the names of such unauthorised medical practitioners to the District Magistrates and no follow up action was taken.
5. In the present appeal, directions have been prayed for only for district of Agra. In the reply affidavit, it has been stated that such unqualified/unregistered doctors after being warned have shifted to other neighbouring districts. We are, therefore, of the opinion that unless directions are issued in respect of the entire State of U.P. the problem cannot be solved. We set aside the impugned judgment and direct us follows :-
6. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, State of U.P. shall take such steps as may be necessary to stop carrying on medical profession in the State of U.P. by persons who are unqualified/unregistered and in addition shall take followings steps :
(i) All District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers of the State shall be directed to identify, within a time limit to be fixed by the Secretary, all unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners and to initiate legal actions against these persons immediately;
(ii) Direct all District Magistrates and the Chief Medical Officers to monitor all legal proceedings initiated against such persons;
(iii) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall give due publicity of the names of such unqualified/unregistered medical practitioners so that people do not approach such persons for medical treatment.
(iv) The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department shall monitor the actions taken by all District Magistrates and all Chief Medical Officers of the State and issue necessary directions from time to time to these officers so that such unauthorised persons cannot pursue their medical profession in the State.
7. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
*************
Paralle Citations of other Journals :
D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2000(3) Supreme 552
00030