Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR NARAIN, V. M. SAHAI
CHAKRESH KUMAR JAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 27549 Of 2001
Decided On : 07/27/2001
Bye-laws - Licensing Requirement for Medical Practitioners - U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Section 294, Section 298 - The court upheld the bye-laws requiring medical practitioners to obtain licenses and pay fees for running nursing homes, clinics, and other medical facilities. The court found that the bye-laws were consistent with the Act and had the power to regulate such establishments under the Act. The court also distinguished between regulatory and compensatory fees, holding that the fees imposed were regulatory in nature.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the Bye-laws framed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Budaun, requiring owners of medical facilities to obtain licenses and pay fees. The validity of these bye-laws was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bye-laws were consistent with the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and had the power to regulate medical facilities. The court also upheld the distinction between regulatory and compensatory fees, holding that the fees imposed were regulatory in nature.
Issues: Validity of Bye-laws requiring medical practitioners to obtain licenses and pay fees for running medical facilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the bye-laws as consistent with the Act and found that the fees imposed were regulatory in nature, distinguishing them from compensatory fees.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the validity of the bye-laws requiring medical practitioners to obtain licenses and pay fees for running medical facilities.
( 1 ) THE petitioner has sought to quash the Bye-laws framed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Budaun whereby the owners of Nursing Homes, Clinics etc. are required to obtain licence and pay fee for the same and the notices issued for realisation of fee.
( 2 ) THE State Government issued a general direction on 27/04/1994 to the Nagar Palikas to frame bye-laws in respect of matters covered by Section 298 (2) of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The Nagar Palika Parishad, respondent No. 2, passed resolution on 23/03/1995 framing bye-laws. The resolution was framed in its meeting held on 11th Nov. 1995.
( 3 ) THE bye-laws were published in the official gazette on 14th and pay fee for the licence. The Nursing Homes, Private Clinics, Pathology Centres and Maternity Homes etc. were required to pay licence fee as prescribed in the bye-laws. The validity of these bye-laws have been challenged in the writ petition.
( 4 ) SIMILAR bye-laws framed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur were challenged in this Court which provided for payment of licence fee on the Nursing Homes, Private Clinics, Pathology Centres, Maternity Homes etc. A Division Bench of this Court upheld the bye-laws in Doctors Jain Kalyan Society v. State of U. P. , 1999 All CJ 1016. The petitioners have challenged the similar bye-laws in this writ petition on various grounds.
( 5 ) THE first point submitted by Sri S. K. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the petitioners are registered Medical Practitioners under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and Indian Medical Council Central Act, 1976. They have a right to practice anywhere at any place and the requirement of obtaining a licence amounts to impediment in carrying out their medical practice.
( 6 ) IN Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1197, where the licence fee on the cinema houses was increased, the cinema owners challenged the levy of licence fee inter alia on the ground that their right to carry on business was restricted and was violative of Art. 19 (1) (f) and (g) of the Constitution of India. The contention was repelled and it was held that the imposition of licence fee does not amount to any violation of fundamental rights to carry on business.
( 7 ) THE mere fact that the Medical Practitioners are required to obtain licence and pay fee for it does not amount to any impediment in their right to practice. If they establish Nursing Homes, Private Clinics, Pathology Centres, Dental Clinics and Maternity Homes within any municipal area, such municipality can require them to pay licence fee as prescribed in the bye-laws. The bye-laws have not put any restriction in carrying on their medical practice.
( 8 ) THE second submission is that the Nagar Palika Parishad has no power under the Act to levy any fee or impose tax for running a clinic or nursing home etc. by the doctors. This question was considered in Doctors Jan Kalyan Society case (1999 All CJ 1016) (supra ). The Court referred to Sections 294 and 298 of the Act which reads as under :-"294 : Licence fees, etc.- The municipality may charge a fee to be fixed by bye-law for any licence, sanction or permission which it is entitled or required to grant by or under this Act. ""298 : Power of municipality to make bye-laws : (1) A municipality by special resolution may, and where required by the State Government shall, make bye-laws applicable to the whole or any part of the municipal area consistent with this Act and with any rule, for the purpose of promoting or maintaining the health, safety and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipal area and for the furtherance of municipal administration under this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by sub-section (1), the municipal area, wherever situated, may, in the exercise of the said power, make any bye-laws described in list I below and the municipal area, wholly, or in part situated in a hilly tract may furt
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
