Dr. Shri Shail Bagewadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Dr. Shri Shail Bagewadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2017

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

                               BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

       WRIT PETITION NO.65216 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

Between:

Dr Shrishail Bagewadi
S/o Shri Rudrappa Bagewadi
Aged about 37 years
Swasthya Health Care and Rehabilitation Centre
Near Srirama Temple Main Road
Jamakhandi Taluk
Ramapura 587 314
Bagalkote District 587101
                                                  ...Petitioner

(by Sri N.R. Naik, Advocate)

And:

1. The State of Karnataka
   Represented by its Secretary
   Health Department
   Vikasa Soudha
   Bengaluru 560 001

2. The Chief Executive Officer and
   Chairman of Registration
   Committee for Karnataka Private
   Medical Establishment
   Bagalkakote District Panchayat
   Bagalakote 587101

3. The District Health and
   Family Welfare Officer
                                   2




   Bagalkakote District
   Bagalakote 587101

4. The District Secretary
   District Ayush Officer
   Bagalkakote District
   Bagalakote 587101

                                                       ...Respondents
(by Shri Ravi Hosamani, AGA)

       This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct respondent No.3 to place the
application dated 5.12.2016 before the second respondent for
registration under the provision of KPMR Act vide Annexure-F; and etc.

      This Writ Petition coming on for hearing on IA, this day, the
Court made the following:

                               ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that petitioner has made application under the provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 to the third respondent with a request to place it before the second respondent. Despite the same, the same has not been forwarded to the second respondent. Hence, the petition seeking a direction to the third respondent to place the application before the second respondent Committee for registration under the said provision.

2. The learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the endorsements dated 25th January and 31st 3 January 2017 that the petitioner has not applied the application in its proper perspective and the petitioner was issued with an endorsement stating that if the petitioner complies with the same, the application of the petitioner would be placed before the second respondent Committee. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the endorsement has not been issued to the petitioner.

3. Under the circumstance, the endorsement placed before the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate is forwarded to the counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner is permitted to comply with the same. Thereafter, the third respondent is directed to place the same before the second respondent for consideration. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE lnn

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court