IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
UJJAL BHUYAN, C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, JJ.
M/s. Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1111 of 2019, Writ Petition No. 10240 of 2021
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 - Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 - Section 3(2) – Election - Medical Council – Held, constitution of Interim Medical Council itself cannot be traced to any valid source of power - Secondly, even assuming such constitution to be a necessity, same cannot continue for an indeterminate period - By its very nature and what has been mentioned in G.O.Rt. No , Interim Medical Council is only a temporary measure; a stop gap arrangement till Medical Council is duly constituted - doctrine of necessity is often invoked in cases of bias where there is no other authority or judge to decide issue - As law has evolved, doctrine of necessity applies not only to judicial matters but also to quasi-judicial and administrative matters - Applying aforesaid doctrine, Interim Telangana State Medical Council may have to be allowed to function till time new Medical Council is constituted in terms of Section 3(2) of Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 and takes charge - Writ petitions allowed
ORDER :
1. This order will dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 1111 of 2019 and 10240 of 2021.
2. We have heard Mr. Sama Sandeep Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Praveen Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Telangana representing the respondents.
3. Writ petition No. 1111 of 2019 has been filed by M/s. Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association, a society registered under the then Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (now Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001) and is represented by its President Dr K. Mahesh Kumar, who is a resident of Saroornagar in the city of Hyderabad. Prayer made in the writ petition is as follows:
(b) setting aside G.O.Ms. No. 15 dated 06.01.2016 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and arbitrary, without jurisdiction and direct the 1st respondent to immediately conduct election to choose the members of the 2nd respondent as per section 3(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 (Act No. 23 of 1968) Amended Act No. 28 of 1986 and Amended Act No. 10 of 2013 and the Telangana State Medical Council Adaptation notification vide G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 03.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent.
(c) pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. Likewise, writ petition No. 10240 of 2021 has been filed by three doctors of Ranga Reddy District in the State of Telangana being Dr. Arundhathi Baki, Dr. Pavan Kumar Namala and Dr. Gopireddy Anirudha. In this writ petition also, petitioners seek quashing of Para 4(3)(i) of the notification in G.O.Ms. No. 68 dated 03.08.2015 issued by the first respondent.
5. Issue raised in both the writ petitions is to the constitution of Telangana State Medical Council, a disciplinary and controlling body established under the then Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 (now Telangana Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968), as amended, by having the elected members representing the practising doctors who are members of the Telangana State Medical Council, a majority say in its functioning as well as holding of election to the Medical Council by setting aside the Interim Medical Council.
6. For the sake of convenience, we may refer to the facts narrated in the first writ petition, namely, writ petition No. 1111 of 2019.
7. Legislature of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968. It is an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to registration of medical practitioners of modern scientific medicine in the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of Section 3(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registration Act, 1968 (briefly ‘the Medical Practitioners Registration Act’ hereinafter), the State Government by notification shall establish a Council called Andhra Pradesh Medical Council which is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal which can sue or be sued in its name. Primary responsibility of the Medical Council is to register the eligible medical graduates of modern scientific medicine, maintain professional standards and to discharge other functions as provided in the Medical Practitioners Registration Act as well as those provided in the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. It is basically a watchdog body on the professional activities of medical practitioners. As per Section 3(2), Andhra Pradesh Medical Council (briefly ‘the Medical Council’ hereinafter) shall consist of the following members:
(b) Thirteen members to be elect
Prem Parkash Pahwa vs. United Commercial Bank
When a statute describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all.
The court affirmed the validity of amended rules limiting eligibility under the ‘Competent Authority Quota,’ which were not legally contested by the petitioner.
The court established that the dissolution of an elected body requires adherence to statutory procedures, including notification of failures and a remedy period, to ensure compliance with principles ....
Existing educational institutions cannot be prohibited from expanding courses or intake without prior functional regulations by the State Council, as per Section 40 of the Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.