Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The argument, if it is seen without the past history of quack practising in the U.P., would seem to be eminently acceptable but the history of quack practice hire has to be kept in mind before this argument is dealt with.

13. The whole thing started with the case of D.K. Joshi v. State of U.P. and Ors.; (2000)5 S.C.C. 80, which concerned quack practice from Agra and in the above judgment, the Supreme Court found widespread quack practice prevailing in U.P. and passed certain directions upon the executive for the purpose of prohibiting and stopping quack practice and saving people from harmful treatment and from being robbed by unscrupulous persons who claimed to be doctors but had no degrees or qualifications.

14. Following the case of D.K. Joshi, certain application had been made by one Rajesh Kumar Srivastava as an interested member of the public. This application was made in the contempt jurisdiction and was made before the Supreme Court itself. By an order passed on 8th October, 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the application but gave liberty to move the High Court for the relief sought.

15. After this application of Sri Srivastava and the said order of the Supreme Court, it has so happened in this State that all disputes of quack practices are being brought before a learned Single Judge who has been allocated the jurisdiction to deal with the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava. Person absolutely different from Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, e.g., like the petitioner in the present case, i.e., Smt. Saxena made application in the pending application of Sri Srivastava entitling the application in the matter of Contempt of Courts Act and in the matter of Section 12 thereof. In such application, the question of contempt is hardly gone into but the question that is gone into is the question of prevention of quack practice. The base is the guideline given in the D.K. Joshi's case and the procedure adopted is the above one. There might be flaw and loopholes so far as the technicality of the matter is concerned but nobody would doubt, and certainly we do not doubt, that the matter of prevention of quack practice is certainly an area the where P.I.L. Court does and should wield effective jurisdiction.

16. Challenges have been made in this case regarding exercise of power to prevent quack practice in contempt jurisdiction and in so far as the reported cases are concerned, there is nothing to show that any Court has yet dismissed any anti quack practice application because it is being filed in the contempt jurisdiction. The two cases of Ravindra Kumar Goel (Dr.) and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. and U.P. Nursing Home Association and Anr. v. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava and Ors. reported in 2005 (55) ALR 807 and 815 respectively, even go to the extent of laying down that even in contempt jurisdiction there is a certain width of discretion which exists in the Court; within permissible width, he passing of the order preventing all quack practice cannot be branded as being passed without jurisdiction.

18. However, henceforth we make it clear that the parties would be better advised to deal with quack practice cases only in its true aspect i.e., in the matter of public interest litigation, in other words henceforth quack practice application and preventive order should be sought for not in Srivastava's contempt application, which is historicaly night but logicaly most jarring, but approach should be made directly to the Division Bench, ours at present, where the public interest litigations are entertained on the first day of presentation of writ and application.