JUDGMENT :

1. This PIL petition was initially filed by one Dr. Surendra Kumar Upadhyay in the year 2015 raising an issue of public importance relating to operation of pathological labs in the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner sought to invoke jurisdiction of this Court seeking issuance of various directions as below:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this P.I.L. (Writ Petition) and by an appropriate writ order or direction:

(i) The Respondents be directed to close down various Pathological Laboratories being run by unqualified persons including Lab Technicians in the State of Rajasthan.

(ii) The Respondents be directed to ensure that no Pathology Laboratory is run by any unqualified person or Institute having no recognized Pathologist registered with the Medical Council.

(iii) The Respondents be directed to enforce the provisions of The Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 with the qualification that Pathological Laboratories should be run, maintained and established by a person who is qualified in M.D. in Pathology or Diploma holder in Clinical Pathology.

(iv) Respondents be directed to ensure that franchise centre in the State of Rajasthan of any laboratory or hospital situated outside Rajasthan should also be manned by qualified Pathologists.

(v) The Respondents may be directed that it shall ensure by appropriate law or regulations that all those hospitals, Nursing Homes, clinics who are having facility of in house pathological laboratories must be manned by a qualified pathologist who should give the final report.

(vi) The respondents be directed to appoint a post of qualified pathologist in all Government Hospitals, Satellite and District Level Hospitals, Community Health Center and Primary Health Center where pathological test are conducted.”

2. During pendency of the petition, the original writ petitioner died. This Court, taking note of the importance of the issue raised in this petition, directed the petition to continue as suo motu writ petition.

3. On 25.04.2016, an order was passed by this Court raising concern that the rules under The Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2010’) have not been framed. Thereafter, another detailed order was passed on 04.08.2016, raising concern that there is mushroom growth in establishment of pathology centres without any registration as required under the provisions of the Act of 2010. This Court was informed that there was no effective control of the State Government and the rules framed by the State Government cannot be of any significance unless Central Government has framed the rules under Section 52 of the Act of 2010.

4. On 17.10.2016, learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the rules have already been framed by Union of India.

5. Thereafter, on 13.04.2018, again a detailed order was passed by this Court taking note of directions issued and observations made from time to time. Expressing its concern, this Court expressed hope that the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department will look into the matter both at the level of State and Centre and report the matter to the Court. The development with regard to framing of draft rules with amendment was also noted by this Court by subsequent orders.

6. In an another order dated 30.05.2018, taking note of deficiency that under the caption, “Basic” no minimum educational qualification is prescribed, time was granted to the counsel appearing for Union of India to seek instructions as to why the minimum qualifications were not prescribed for basic composite laboratories.

7. On 14.09.2018, order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of North Gujarat Unit of Association of Self Employed Owners (Paramedical) of Private Pathology Laboratories of Gujarat vs. North Gujarat Pathologists Association and Others (Petition for Special Leave to Appe