Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. P. K. Gupta vs Delhi Medical Council And Anr on 1 February, 2019
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1039/2019
DR. P. K. GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr M. C. Gupta with Mr Ritesh
Kumar Pandey, Advocates.
versus
DELHI MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Praveen Khattar with Mr Bapi
Das, Advocates for R-1 alongwith Mr
L. D. S. Uppal, Assistant Secretary,
Delhi Medical Council.
Mr T. Singhdev, Advocate for R-
2/MCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 01.02.2019 CM No.4681/2019
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1039/2019 & CM No.4680/2019
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 09.05.2017 passed by the Delhi Medical Council (DMC), whereby the DMC had accepted the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is the petitioner's case that he is not registered with the Delhi Medical Council and, therefore, not subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of DMC. The petitioner claims that he is registered with the U.P. Medical Council and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings, if any, are required to be initiated by that Council. It is also the petitioner's case that Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is not applicable, since the petitioner is registered with U.P. Medical Council and, therefore, has complied with the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
3. Mr Khattar, learned counsel appearing for the DMC points out that in terms of Section 15(6) of the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997 no person can practice modern technique system of medicine in Delhi unless he is registered with the DMC. He submits that since the petitioner has practiced as a Medical Practitioner after his name was removed from the Delhi Medical Council, he has violated the provisions under Section 15(6) of the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997.
4. Prima facie, the petitioner cannot practice in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as a Medical Practitioner in view of the express language of Section 15(6) of the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997. However, it does appear that there is no punishment that has been prescribed under the Delhi Medical Council Act, 1997. It also, prima facie, appears that the petitioner has not violated the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 since his name is registered in the Medical Register maintained by U.P. Medical Council. This Court is of the view that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are required to be undertaken by the U.P. Medical Council where he is registered.
5. Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing for respondents accepts notice and seeks time to file a reply. Let the same be filed within a period of two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
6. Since it is the petitioner's case that any disciplinary proceedings are required to be undertaken by the U.P. Medical Council, it is directed that the complaint filed against the petitioner alongwith the observations of the DMC be forwarded to the U.P. Medical Council for necessary action. Further, the petitioner is restrained from practicing as a Medical Practitioner in the National Capital Territory of Delhi till the next date of hearing.
7. List on 28.02.2019.
8. In the meanwhile, the proceedings relating to the prosecution launched by the DMC against the petitioner are stayed.
9. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 01, 2019 MK