IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Suspension of licence to practise medicine is alien to nature and types of punishment and penalties specified under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

Leave granted.

The question this Court must consider, is: –

“Whether the suspension of the Petitioner’s license to practice medicine is alien to the nature and types of punishment and penalties specified under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?”

THE FACTS

1. The present appeal stands filed against the judgement rendered by the High Court of Calcutta, (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) in MAT No. 67 of 2022, by which it upheld various orders passed by learned single Judge dated 5th, 11th, 12th and 14th July, 2022 in contempt proceedings bearing number WPCRC9 of 2022, whereby vide the order dated 11th July, 2022 the Petitioner/Appellant’s licence to practice medicine, was suspended.

2. Further with the order dated 14th July 2022, while extending the period of suspension till 19th August 2022, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why such suspension be not affected for a period of two years.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that the Appellant had unauthorizedly constructed a structure which was in deviation with the plans sanctioned by the Siliguri Municipal Corporation.,¹[Hereafter, “SMC”] Respondent No.1(private party) filed numerous complaints against such unauthorised construction, but to no avail. Discontented by the non-intervention of the Commissioner of SMC,²[Hereafter, Respondents No. 2], and the SMC,³[Hereafter, Respondents No. 3] - appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court. Vide order dated 22nd December 2016 passed in W.P No. 11464 (W) of 2016, Respondent No. 3 was directed to have the construction so made, inspected and submit a report before the court. On the next date of hearing, that is 19th December 2017 it was directed that the representation that stood already filed before the Municipal Corporation dated 2nd August 2007, was to be considered and a reasoned order was to be passed thereon.

4. Pursuant to the above direction, an order dated 13th June 2018, directing the Respondents No. 3 to demolish the unauthorised construction, was passed. This order however, came to be quashed by the High Court observing the Commissioner SMC, not to be the competent authority and instead, only the Board of Councillors of the SMC, who could pass orders for demolition. Subsequently, vide a fresh order dated 25th June 2019 the Board of Councillors of SMC while observing the construction to be unauthorised, ordered its demolition. In furtherance thereto, Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 3rd August 2019 directing the demolition to be carried out.

5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner, (Appellant herein) filed a Writ Petition bearing No. 349/2019 before the High Court of Calcutta (circuit bench at Jalpaiguri.) The same was disposed of with the observation that an appeal from the order dated 25th June 2019, lay before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs, Government of West Bengal. The said authority passed orders on 8thJanuary 2020 and 28th July 2020 directing the SMC to take necessary steps to aid the petitioner in undertaking self-demolition of the unauthorised construction and, in the event of his failure to do so, directed that the SMC itself undertakes such steps to do so.

6. Respondent No. 1 then filed a contempt petition in WPA No. 349 of 2019. It is hereunder that the license to practice medicine, of the Appellant herein, was suspended.

LAW ON THE ISSUE AT HAND

7. The grant, regulation and suspension of the licence to practice medicine is governed by the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. It facilitates the maintenance of a medical register for India and enforces high ethical standards in regards of all aspects of medical services. A statutory body namely the National Medical Commission looks after the abovementioned activities.

8. A perusal of the provisions of this Act as well as the now repealed, Medical Council Act, 1956 shows that the power to punish a registered medical practitioner for “misconduct” rest exclusively with the body envisaged u