Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, H. K. Bose
STATE MEDICAL FACULTY OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
KSHITI BHUSAN DUTT - Respondent
A. F. O. D. 51 Of 1958
Decided On : MAY 05, 1960
MEDICAL PRACTICE - Certificate of practice - Scrutiny of application - Scrutiny Board's finding that requirements of Article 6-C of the Statutes of the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal not fulfilled - Governing Body's refusal to grant certificate - Suit for declaration and injunction - Maintainability - Held, suit not maintainable - Governing Body not liable - Court cannot act as Governing Body or Scrutiny Board - No fundamental error in decision of Scrutiny Board - No violation of principles of natural justice - No excess of jurisdiction - Court cannot create doctors by judicial verdicts.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a student of the Dacca National College, Medical Branch, during the years 1921 to 1925, claimed to have completed the four years' course of study in specific subjects and passed the College Final Examination in 1925. He obtained a certificate from the college 3 years later on 29-1-1928. He alleged that he had been in actual practice of the western system of medicine ever since the year 1925. He applied for a certificate under Article 6-C of the Statute of the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal, which was refused by the defendants. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he was entitled to a certificate and an injunction commanding the defendants to grant the certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. The Governing Body was not liable as the Scrutiny Board had found that the requirements of Article 6-C of the Statutes were not fulfilled. The Court could not act as the Governing Body or the Scrutiny Board. There was no fundamental error in the decision of the Scrutiny Board and no violation of the principles of natural justice. There was no excess of jurisdiction. The Court could not create doctors by judicial verdicts.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable? 2. Whether the Governing Body was liable? 3. Whether the Court could act as the Governing Body or the Scrutiny Board? 4. Whether there was any fundamental error in the decision of the Scrutiny Board? 5. Whether there was any violation of the principles of natural justice? 6. Whether there was any excess of jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Governing Body had no duty cast upon it under Article 6-C to issue a certificate before the required scrutiny. In fact, Rule 5 (3) definitely prohibits the grant of such certificate where the Special Board finds that the requirements of Article 6-C are not fulfilled. The Governing Body, therefore, is expressly prohibited in that event. 2. The Court could not act as the Governing Body or the Scrutiny Board. The nature of relief granted and the decree given could not be supported on the Special Statutes which deal with the duties and functions of the Governing Body and the Special Board and secondly, in the light of the general law an legal relies permissible in suits of this kind. 3. There was no fundamental error in the decision of the Scrutiny Board. The decision of the Special Board in this case was eminently reasonable and sensible. 4. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It is established and undisputed on the record that they received duly the application, that they scrutinised the application, that they gave interview to the applicant not once but more than once and they even heard the applicant's lawyers which they were not bound to hear. A fair hearing was granted and fair consideration of the record is established and we, therefore, do not think that any principles of natural justice had been violated by the appellants in the proceedings before them. 5. There was no excess of jurisdiction. The reasons which persuaded the learned Judge to come to this conclusion were that the Special Board did not actually say that the requirements of Article 6-C of the Statutes had been complied with and, therefore, the Governing Body failed to exercise their jurisdiction and issue the certificate due to a misapprehension of their own power. This makes it necessary to examine the records of this case.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Decree and judgment of the trial court set aside. Suit dismissed. No order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS is the defendants' appeal from the judgment and decree of P. C. Mallick J. , decreeing the plaintiff's suit. In fact the decree under appeal first declares that the plaintiff is entitled to a certificate under Article 6-C of the Statute of the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal which means that he is qualified to practise what is called, the western medical science and secondly that the defendants do grant the plaintiff a certificate, under the said Article.
( 2 ) ELEVEN defendants including the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal and the members of the Governing Body of the State Medical Faculty are the appellants before us.
( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff respondent is that he was a student of the Dacca National College, Medical Branch, during the years 1921 to 1925 and that he duly completed the four years' course of study in specific subjects such as Anatomy, physiology, Pathology, Materia Medica, Pathology, Medicine, Surgery, Midwifery, Hygiene and Medical Jurisprudence. He alleges that he passed the College Final Examination in the year 1925. He obtained a certificate from the college 3 years later on 29-1-1928. His further allegation is that he has been in actual practice of the western system of medicine ever since the year 1925. He therefore, claims the certificate under Article 6-C of the Statute of the State Medical Faculty of West Bengal.
( 4 ) IT is the plaintiff's case that on 6-12-1948 he made an application for such certificate. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant-appellants acted unlawfully and without jurisdiction in refusing to grant him the certificate and that they had acted unreasonably, irregularly, unlawfully, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. In the plaint the first declaration which the plaintiff seeks is that he is entitled to the certificate, secondly, a declaration that the refection by the defendants of the plaintiff's application is unlawful. Irregular and without jurisdiction and thirdly, a mandatory injunction commanding the defendant-appellants to grant the certificate to the petitioner.
( 5 ) THE appellant's case in the written statement is that the plaintiff made false statements in respect of the year of his completing the four years' study required by
the Statute and in respect of the year of his passing the Final Examination. The appellants further allege that they granted interviews to the plaintiff and the Special Board appointed by the Governing Body considered the divergent and contradictory statements made by the plaintiff before them and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not state or prove the year of his admission in the Dacca National College. The appellants also state in their written statement that the plaintiff stated his age in the application to be 40 years and if that was the plain-tiff's age then, then he was only 13 years old when he was supposed to have joined the Dacca National College in the year 1921. The appellants assert that they have not acted unreasonably or without jurisdiction or unlawfully or in any way violating the principles of natural justice.
( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge proceeds on the basis that the errors committed by the plaintiff were due to his mistake and that the admitted error of the plaintiff developed into an obsession in the minds of the members of the Scrutiny Board of the appellant. The trial Judge goes farther to say that the plaintiff's explanations were convincing and should have been acceptable to the Board and the Board's non-acceptance of the explanation amounted to such extreme unreasonableness that it could be called perversity. No case of perversity, however, was even pleaded in the plaint, nor was there any breath of allegation against the appellant about bad faith. The judgment under appeal comes to the conclusion that the Special Board under the State failed to perform its duty to the Governing Body in not stating whether the requirements
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
