karnataka high court

Karnataka High Court: In a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution where the petitioner sought for quashment of an endorsement dated 25-09-2023 issued by Respondent under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act 2007 declining to issue registration certificate to petitioner for his Sangeetha clinic; the single judge bench of M. Nagaprasanna, J.*, whilst dismissing the petition, opined that petitioner is not a medical practitioner, he is para medical practitioner and therefore not entitled to any registration under the 2007 Act which is essential for continuation of practice as a medical practitioner. “It is rather strange as to how the petitioner addresses himself as a practicing doctor for all these years. Time has come to pull the curtain down on such people who are practicing medicine without qualification and hoodwinking poor people in rural areas”.


The petitioner claimed to be a medical practitioner. He had completed community medical service course-C.M.S. and obtained CMS-ED certificate from the Central Paramedical Education Board, Mumbai. It was stated that he took training in paramedical course at Delhi and on the basis of the aforesaid certificate wanted to establish a clinic in the name of Sangeetha Clinic.

Karnataka Government promulgated Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act, 2007 which made it mandatory for private practitioners to get approval under the Act. The petitioner filed an online application for registration which was rejected by the authority by the impugned endorsement.

Petitioner contended that having aforesaid qualifications he is entitled to practice medicine as the Act does not differentiate between medical practitioners. It was further contended that there are many judgements where the Court issued directions to consider application by non-mainstream medical practitioners.

Per Contra, respondents argued that every judgement produced by petitioner was a case where no endorsement was issued and Court gave directions for consideration of applications, but the same cannot be applied in this case as the endorsement has already been issued.

Analysis, Law and Decision

The Court noted that the petitioner had been knocking the doors of the Court again and again seeking consideration of his application. The Court in the past directed the consideration of his application twice as the application could not be kept pending for long time. After the orders of the Court, the impugned endorsement was passed by the authority.

It was further pointed out that the provisions of the 2007 Act makes it unmistakably clear that qualifications possessed by the petitioner do not make him a ‘Private Medical Practitioner’ as per Section 2(k) of the 2007 Act as paramedical study which the petitioner has undergone is absent in the Section.

It was further opined that Section 2(k) itself is elaborative enough to bring in all necessary degrees. The Court noted that the petitioner has Diploma in Community Medical Services with Essential Drugs. This is a Diploma conferred by the Indian Council of Medico Technicals and Health Care, a society registered under the Societies Registration Adhiniyam, Kanpur. This is termed as CMS-ED certificate which is a Diploma in Community Medicine Services with essential drugs and the subject that the petitioner studied is Paramedical course. If the nature of the course that the petitioner has undergone is considered on the bedrock of the provisions of 2007 Act, then the petitioner cannot be considered a medical practitioner.

The Court relied upon a Division Bench decision rendered by the High Court in M.R. Mohan Bhatta v. State of Karnataka1 and held that no fault could be found with the endorsement issued under the Act. Thus, the Court rejected the petition on the absence of merit in the present case.

[Annaiah. N. v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 149, Order dated 20-12-2023]

*Order by Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioner: Prakasha M, Advocate

For Respondent: Navya Shekhar, Additional Government Advocate

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Constitution of India

1. W.A.No. 478 of 2023

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.