Karnataka High Court
M/S Brains Private Limited vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46714
WP No. 29603 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29603 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S BRAINS PRIVATE LIMITED
REP. BY SRI. TRIVIKRAMA RAO V
S/O. LATE GOPAL RAO V
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
NO. 192, T. MARIYAPPA ROAD
1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE 560 011.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
Digitally signed REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
by SHWETHA VIKASA SOUDHA
RAGHAVENDRA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M. S. BUILDING
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
AROGYA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560 023.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AND
CHAIRMAN OF KPME
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46714
WP No. 29603 of 2025
HC-KAR
(REGISTRATION AND GRIEVANCE
REDRESSAL AUTHORITY)
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD
BANGALORE-560 009.
5. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N. R. SQUARE, BANGALORE -560 002.
6. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
(SOUTH RANGE)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS
9TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 011.
7. THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
OLD TB HOSPITAL, OLD MADRAS ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 038.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R4:
SRI.K B MONISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
FROM THE R-4 IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:
02.09.2025 (ANNEXURE-H), QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:
02.09.2025 BEARING NO. K.P.M.E/DOORU/131/2024-25 PASSED BY
THE R-4 (ANNEXURE-H) AND DROP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDING
PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46714
WP No. 29603 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a) Call for records from the r-4 in respect of the Impugned Order dated: 02.09.2025 (Annexure-H)
b) Issue writ or order quashing the Impugned order dated: 02.09.2025 bearing no.
k.p.m.e/dooru/131/2024-25 passed by the r-4 (Annexure-H) and drop all further proceeding pursuant thereto in the interest of justice and equity.
c) Pass any other appropriate order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this Writ Petition.
[
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide impugned order dated 02.09.2025 bearing No. K.P.M.E/Dooru/131/2024-25 passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District and Chairman of KPME, the license granted to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment, Act 2007 (for short hereinafter referred to as "KPME Act, 2007") has been cancelled.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46714 WP No. 29603 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. The submission of Sri.Satish.K., learned counsel for the petitioner, is that any cancellation of a license granted under KPME Act can be made only in terms of Section 15, and violation of any lease condition cannot be a ground for such cancellation in terms of Section 15. Thus, he submits that the action taken by the respondents, not in accordance with the applicable law and powers which have been exercised by respondent No.4 do not exist in terms of section 15 of the KPME Act, 2007.
4. Learned AGA would however submit that there is a gross violation of the lease conditions in as much as the lease was granted in favour of M/s. Mahabodhi Society, the said society has entered into an agreement with the petitioner and the petitioner has put up construction using the public land for private purpose and as such there being a violation of the lease conditions, actions have been taken by respondent No.4.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46714 WP No. 29603 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Heard Sri.Sathish.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Saritha Kulkarni., learned AGA for respondents. perused papers.
6. A short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is:
"Whether violation of a lease for the property on which the establishment is running could be a ground for cancellation of the license under the KPME Act, 2007".
7. Section 15 of the KPME Act, 2007 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
15. Penalty or suspension or cancellation of registration.-
(1) In case of any private medical establishment failing to comply with any of the directions given by the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority under sub-section (8) of section 7, the Authority may impose a penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees and extend the time for compliance or proceed to cancel the registration of the establishment, after giving the establishment an opportunity of being heard. (2) In case of a complaint from a patient regarding overcharging the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority after holding enquiry under sub-section (3) of section 8 finds that the Private Medical Establishment has violated the provisions of subsection (2), (4) or (5) of section 10 the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority shall impose a penalty equivalent to one and -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46714 WP No. 29603 of 2025 HC-KAR half times of the overcharged amount, after giving the establishment an opportunity of being heard. Out of the penalty amount an amount equal to the over-charged amount shall be paid to the patient and the balance shall be deposited with the Arogya Raksha Samithi of the district for taking up public health activities:
Provided that in case of such over-charging by a particular private establishment the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority after holding such enquiry under sub-section (3) of section 8 finds that the Private Medical Establishments has violated the provisions of section 10 for the third time within a calendar year, the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority shall make a written complaint to the concerned Court for taking up cognizance of the offence and subsequent prosecution. On conviction, the concerned private medical establishment shall be liable for a penalty which may be extend to three-times of the amount over charged or rupees one lakh, whichever is higher.
(3) In case of a complaint from a patient regarding any matter in the Patient's Charter or Private Establishments Charter, other than the over-charging the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority having found that the Private Medical Establishments has violated the provisions of section 11A shall impose a penalty of rupees ten thousand for the first non-compliance and rupees twenty five thousand for the second non-
compliance during a calendar year on the concerned private medical establishment, after giving the establishment an opportunity of being heard. Fifty percent of the penalty amount shall be paid to the patient and the balance fifty percent shall be deposited with the Arogya Rakshana Samithi of the district for taking up public health activities:
Provided that in case of such complaint against a particular private establishment for the third time within a calendar year, the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority shall make a written complaint to the concerned Court for taking up cognizance of the offence and subsequent prosecution. On conviction, the concerned private medical establishment be liable for a penalty which may be extend to fifty thousand rupees.]2 -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46714 WP No. 29603 of 2025 HC-KAR 3[(5)]3The 1[Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority]1 , on the basis of a complaint or otherwise if a prima facie case exists about the contravention of any provisions of this Act or the rules made there under or conditions of registration may, by order in writing and for the reason to be recorded in writing suspend or cancel the registration of a Private Medical Establishment:
Provided that no such order shall be made except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the Private Medical Establishment. 2[and also ensure that arrangements are made within reasonable time for uninterrupted health care to the inpatients.]2 3[(6)]3 Every order made under sub-section (1) shall contain a direction that the inpatients of the Private Medical Establishment shall be transferred to such other Private Medical Establishment as may be specified in that order and it shall also contain such provisions as to the care and custody of such inpatients pending such transfer.
3[(7)]3 Every order made under sub-section (1) shall take effect,-
(a) where no appeal has been preferred against such order under section 17, immediately on the expiry of the period specified for such appeal; and
(b) where such appeal has been preferred and the same has been dismissed, from the date of order of such dismissal.
8. A perusal of Section 15 would indicate that the penalty or suspension or cancellation of registration could be imposed on any Private Medical Establishment and its failure to comply with any directions given by the Registration Grievance -8- NC: 2025:KHC:46714 WP No. 29603 of 2025 HC-KAR Redressal Authority under Sub-section (8) of Section 7, a complaint filed by a patient regarding overcharging, violation of the patient charter for private establishment charter etc., as contained therein.
9. The license issued under the KPME Act, 2007 is for the purpose of running a medical establishment, and the said license only governs the manner in which a medical establishment can be run under the said Act. The powers under the said Act therefore, cannot be exercised as regards a violation or any complaint as regards violation of a lease agreement as regards the land on which the medical establishment has been constructed.
10. If at all, there is a violation of the lease conditions as per the lease between BBMP and M/s.Mahabodhi Society, it is for the BBMP to take necessary action in terms of the applicable law as may be provided. Respondent No.4-Deputy Commissioner cannot, on -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46714 WP No. 29603 of 2025 HC-KAR the basis of violation of the alleged lease, cancel the license without the requirement of Section 15 of the KPME Act, 2007 being satisfied.
11. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. A certiorari is issued, the order dated 2.9.2025
bearing number sold at Annexure-H is quashed. iii. Liberty is, however, reserved to the BBMP to initiate such proceedings as may be permissible under law.
iv. Liberty is also reserved to respondent No.4 to initiate proceedings under Section 15 of the KPME Act, 2007, if there is any violation of Section 15 of the KPME Act, 2007.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67