The notice issued for disciplinary action against a medical practitioner must comply with mandatory procedural requirements, failing which it is considered void and unenforceable.

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Challenging the Notice dated 29.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent - Telangana State Medical Council, petitioner is before this Court.

2. Petitioner is stated to be a registered medical practitioner and running Sunrise Hospital at Sangareddy with 90 beds and 12 specialties and super specialty consultants working full time. He is the Resident Medical Officer (RMO) and Managing Director of the said hospital. While so, the 3rd respondent issued notice to petitioner dated 04.07.2022 on the basis of a complaint given by the 5^th respondent that his son Master Rohit while riding a bicycle fell down and sustained a swelling near left elbow; he was taken to petitioner's hospital for treatment where an x-ray was taken and noticed that there was a hair line fracture and the boy was treated with POP slab and further advised to follow up after five days for re-manipulation and immobilization. On his reference to other hospitals, the 5^th respondent was informed that his son was not properly treated at petitioner's hospital. To the said notice, petitioner submitted explanation. Petitioner states that the 5^th respondent lodged a complaint in this regard with the District Medical & Health Officer, Sangareddy, who, after obtaining expert opinion, opined that the treatment given to the boy is correct.

2.1. It is stated that thereafter, Respondent No.3 slept over the matter for more than nine months and issued second notice dated 11.04.2023 and directed petitioner to appear before the Ethics Committee on 26.04.2023. Subsequently, petitioner was given notices by the 3^rd respondent on 15.05.2023, 27.06.2023 and 28.10.2023 and he answered the same. But the complainant never appeared before the Committee to address his grievance. While things stood thus, surprisingly, Respondent No.3 again issued notice on 08.04.2024. The 5^th respondent lodged a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sangareddy and the same was numbered as Consumer Case No. 37 of 2024. Eventually, the Commission, taking into consideration the expert opinion obtained by the DM&HO, by order dated 07.08.2024 closed the case. In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenged the Notice dated 29.10.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent under Rule-6 of India Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 (the 2002 Regulations) alleging violation of Provisions 1.4.2 and 7.20 of the 2002 Regulations, on several grounds such as (i) the complaint of the 5^th respondent is not concerned with the allegations made in this notice; (ii) no complaint pertaining to the allegations of this notice is lodged with the 3rd respondent; (iii) the 3^rd respondent violated the procedure for conduction of enquiries; (iv) the 3^rd respondent violated Principles of Natural Justice, and so on. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. This Court by order dated 11.11.2025, granted interim stay of the impugned order dated 29.10.2025.

4. The 3^rd respondent filed counter stating that Writ Petition is premature as Petitioner challenged the notice and has also not availed remedy under Regulation 8.7 of the IMC Regulations. It is stated, the earlier notices starting from 04.07.2022, 12.11.2024 and personal hearings thereto was pursuant to the Preliminary procedure contemplated under Rules 1 to 3 as per the Rules Regulating the Procedure at an Enquiry held under Sections 15 and 17 of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Practitioners Registrations Act, 1968. As per the aforesaid Rules, after Preliminary procedure contemplated under Rules 1 to 3 has been completed, under Rule 4 (2) 'If the Council considers that the case is one in which an enquiry un