JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. The petitioner is a renowned nephrologist with several achievements to his credit. The petitioner is aggrieved by a communication of the Directorate of Health Services (DHS), Government of West Bengal to the Director of the Ohio Hospital and Medical Centre, Kolkata dated 14th January, 2022, by which the registration of the Hospital for organ transplantation was kept in abeyance on several grounds including that of the petitioner’s name being included in the transplant team of the Hospital. The ground given was that certain litigations are pending against the petitioner on the issue of renal transplantation.

2. The petitioner seeks cancellation of this decision and protection from the Court in relation to the petitioner’s association with any Hospital for the purpose of carrying out kidney transplantation.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO Act) and submits that the role of medical practitioners is regulated under the said Act including the responsibilities and obligations of clinical establishments where transplantation of human organs is carried out. Counsel submits that the petitioner has virtually been blacklisted from participating as a member of the kidney transplantation team not only in Ohio Hospital but also in other Hospitals including Medica. Counsel places the representations made to the Director of Health Services by the petitioner in December, 2021 and by AMRI in August, 2021 which have not been responded to by the authorities. Counsel submits that of the two criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, this Court granted stay in one of such proceedings in 2016. Counsel submits that several other doctors who are involved in the second criminal proceeding have been allowed to practice in the area of renal transplantation. Counsel denies the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner.

4. The learned AAAG appearing for the State takes the point of locus-standi of the petitioner based on the provisions of the TOHO Act. According to counsel, the hospital is required to be registered under section 14 of the Act as a condition precedent for being entitled to commence any activity relating to transplantation of any human organ or tissue and is entitled for grant of a certificate of registration under section15 of the Act. Since the registration is not issued in the name of any person or individual, the petitioner has no cause of action or locus-standi to challenge the refusal by the concerned authority. Counsel submits that none of the hospitals including Ohio and Medica have expressed any grievance against denial of registration under the Act. Counsel further takes the point of alternative remedy available under section 17 of the Act which provides for appeal from an order of the Appropriate Authority rejecting an application for registration under section 15(2) of the Act. Counsel submits that the petitioner is continuing with his profession of treating patients suffering from renal diseases and there is hence no interference with his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a charge-sheeted accused in a 2020 Raiganj P.S. case also involving fifteen other accused persons in relation to the offence of illegal kidney transplantation.

5. The relevant dates placed on behalf of the parties to the Court indicate that a complaint case was filed against the petitioner in 2014/2015 pursuant whereto an order was passed on 25th April, 2016 staying the proceedings in the said Complaint Case pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. A subsequent order was passed on 6th July, 2017 in a writ petition filed by Medica Hospitals against an order of the Director of Health Services wherein the impugned order was set aside and the Director was directed to proceed with Medica’s application for renewal of