ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashment of an endorsement dated 25-09-2023 issued by the 3rd respondent/ District Health & Family Welfare Officer and Member Secretary of the Committee of Registration under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act 2007 declining to issue registration certificate to the petitioner for his Sangeetha Clinic.

2. Heard Sri M.Prakasha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

3. The facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be a medical practitioner practicing in various forms of medicine. He has completed community medical service course – C.M.S. course and has obtained CMS-ED certificate from the Central Paramedical Education Board, Mumbai which the petitioner claims to be under the World Health Organization directive or guidelines. He further avers in the petition that he has taken training in paramedical course at Delhi and on the strength of the aforesaid certificate that he possesses begins a clinic in the name and style of Sangeetha Clinic at Mini Ibrahim Road, KGF, Bangarpet Taluk and claims to be practicing from several years.

4. Government of Karnataka promulgates Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007 (‘the Act’ for short) which came into effect from 23-01-2008. As required under the Act, a medical practitioner who wants to set up a private practice must apply under the Act and once registration is approved he would be entitled to practice. Accordingly, the petitioner files an application online for registration of his clinic under the Act. This comes to be rejected by the impugned endorsement on the score that the qualification of the petitioner does not permit registration under the Act. The turning down of the application in terms of the endorsement dated 25-09-2023 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner having the aforesaid qualification is entitled to practice medicine. The Act does not differentiate between medical practitioners but does define only medicine and not any form of medicine and as such private medical establishments can function. He would seek that there are plethora of judgments rendered by co-ordinate Benches of this Court where directions are issued to consider cases of those petitioners who are not in the main stream of medicine.

6. Per-contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Navya Shekahar would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that these doctors are practicing allopathy without there being any qualification to so practice. Every judgment produced by the petitioner are all cases in which this Court has directed consideration of the cases of the petitioners who have submitted their applications online and no endorsement was issued upon the said applications. It is her submission that those cases would not be applicable to the fact situation, as endorsement is already issued stating that the petitioner is not entitled to registration of practice under the Act. She would place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in DR. M.R. MOHAN BHATTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1 to buttress her submissions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the impugned endorsement and the impugned endorsement is based upon the Act, I deem it appropriate to notice certain provisions of the Act. Section 2 deals with definitions. Section 2(k) defines who is a Medical Practitioner and reads as follows:

“(k) ‘Medical Practitioner’ means a medical practitioner registered under the Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 35 of 1961), Ayurvedic, Naturopathy, Si