JUDGMENT:- Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the petition is taken for final hearing.

3. This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the two orders dated 01/04/2011 and 11/04/2011 passed by competent authority established under the provisions of "The Transplantation Of Human Organs Act, 1994" (Henceforth referred to as "the Act '), preventing and affecting the petitioner's right to practice medicine. The petitioner is Medical Practitioner. He is a Surgeon. Since 1999 he has been performing kidney transplantation surgeries. He has been providing his services to various hospitals as free lance surgeon. He used to visit and perform surgeries at Aditya Birla Hospital, Pune and "Suretech Hospital", Nagpur prior to the impugned orders.

4. On 26th November, 2010 a team comprised of Dr. Bhavani the head of the department of urology & Department of Surgery, Bombay and Dr. Mohan Jadhav, who is a Govt. Officer who is appointed as "the appropriate authority" under the Act, visited Aditya Birla Hospital, Pune. They found that the petitioner had been visiting this hospital for performing the surgeries. They noticed that the petitioner's name as a surgeon of the hospital was not mentioned when the hospital sought registration under the Act. They therefore, issued a show cause notice to the hospital as to why its registration should not be cancelled. Similar show cause notice was given to Suretech hospital, Nagpur on the same ground that the petitioner and one more Surgeon were allowed to perform surgeries in that hospital. After submission of explanations etc the impugned orders mentioned above were passed. The orders inter alia specifically mentioned that the petitioner was not recognized for performing the kidney transplantation operation and therefore he should not be allowed to perform such operations in the above named hospitals. The order also cancelled the registration of the hospitals. The petitioner is concerned with only that part of the order which adversely affected him.

The question that arises for consideration is "whether the petitioner or any medical practitioner required specific recognition from the appropriate authority appointed under the Act for performing surgeries in the registered hospital?

5. In order to answer this, one must peruse the above mentioned act and the rules made there under. The relevant provisions of the Act are mentioned below.

Section 2. Definitions: In this Act unless the context otherwise requires:

(b) “A ppropriate Authority" means the Appropriate Authority appointed under section 13;

(g) "hospital" includes a nursing home, clinic, medical centre, medical or teaching institution for therapeutic purposes and other like institution;

(n) "registered medical practitioner" means a medical practitioner who possesses any recognized medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of section-2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and who is enrolled on a State Medical Register as defined in clause (k) of that section;

S. 10. Regulation of hospitals conducting the removal, storage or transplantation of human organs : (1). On and from the commencement of this Act:

(a) no hospital, unless registered under this Act, shall conduct, or associate with, or help in, the removal, storage or transplantation of any human organ;

(b) no medical practitioner or any other person shall conduct, or cause to be conducted, or aid in conducting by himself or through any other person, any activity relating to the removal, storage or transplantation of any human organ at a place other than an place registered under this Act; and

(c) no place including a hospital registered under sub-section (1) of section 15 shall be used or cause to be used by any person for the removal, storage or transplantation of any human organ except for therapeutic purposes.

(2). Notwithstanding any thing contained in sub-section (1), the eyes or the e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document