Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA1/2018
_ ANAND SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kali Charan,Advocate
LPA1/2018
_ ANAND SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kali Charan,Advocate
VERSUS
DR PRADEEP SINGHAL & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr.T.Singhdev,Ms.Amandeep Kaur,Mr.Tarun Verma and Ms.Puja
Sarkar,Advocates for R-2.
Mr.Praveen Khattar,Advocate for , R-3.
Mr.Ajay Digpaul,CGSC with Ms.Madhuri Dhingra,Advocate for
R-5. , .
Through: Mr.T.Singhdev,Ms.Amandeep Kaur,Mr.Tarun Verma and Ms.Puja
Sarkar,Advocates for R-2.
Mr.Praveen Khattar,Advocate for , R-3.
Mr.Ajay Digpaul,CGSC with Ms.Madhuri Dhingra,Advocate for
R-5. , .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
05.01.2018 The appellant's grievance is thatthe learned Single Judge in the impugned order set aside the disciplinary order of the Medical
Council of India ('MCT) striking off,the name of the respondent-
Doctor from the Indian Medical Council's Register w.e.f. 30.05.2017.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge overlooked the circumstance thatthe concerned contesting respondent-Doctor had,in fact,preferred an appeal under Section 24(2)ofthe Indian Medical
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
05.01.2018 The appellant's grievance is thatthe learned Single Judge in the impugned order set aside the disciplinary order of the Medical
Council of India ('MCT) striking off,the name of the respondent-
Doctor from the Indian Medical Council's Register w.e.f. 30.05.2017.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge overlooked the circumstance thatthe concerned contesting respondent-Doctor had,in fact,preferred an appeal under Section 24(2)ofthe Indian Medical
LPA 1/2018 . ' Page 1 of3
2018:DHC:9119-DB nr-y''^ Council Act, 1956,and that in these circumstances,it was inexpedient to exercise thejudicial review discretion.
The learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition on behalf ofthe aggrieved Doctors and after considering the record, was ofthe opinion that the proceedings of the Ethics Committee indicated that the show cause notices were returned unserved. Having regard to these circumstances, learned Single Judge set aside the disciplinary order, but, at the same time directed the MCI to pass a final order on merits within six months from the date of the impugned order
(30.10.2017).
This Court is ofthe opinion that the plea ofalternative remedy, and that the pendency ofthe appeal being a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition, which ordinarily is a substantial one, is not merited. Once the learned Single Judge discovered that the ex-parte order was notpreceded by proper notice to the respondent-Doctor and other concerned Doctors, it was evident that there was a manifest failure ofnaturaljustice. In these circumstances,even while ensuring that corrective action, by way of directing fresh proceedings, the learned Single Judge has protected the interest ofthe complainant by ensuring that the complaint was to be disposed ofwithin a time bound manner i.e. six months,with further adequate safeguards.
Having regard to these facts,the Court is ofthe opinion that the lone plea of alternative remedy is not a substantial one so as to warrant interference with the orders oflearned Single Judge. Atthe
LPA 1/2018 Page 2of3 same time,whilethe MCIshall ensure thatthe time limit specified is adhered, to the extent, it is expedient; it shall also ensure that the
Overseeing Committee, which has been appointed to look into its affairs and functioning, is further apprised ofthis order to ensure its compliance..
The appeal is disposed ofaccordingly.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J A.K.CHAWLA,J JANUARY 05,2018 nn
2018:DHC:9119-DB nr-y''^ Council Act, 1956,and that in these circumstances,it was inexpedient to exercise thejudicial review discretion.
The learned Single Judge entertained the writ petition on behalf ofthe aggrieved Doctors and after considering the record, was ofthe opinion that the proceedings of the Ethics Committee indicated that the show cause notices were returned unserved. Having regard to these circumstances, learned Single Judge set aside the disciplinary order, but, at the same time directed the MCI to pass a final order on merits within six months from the date of the impugned order
(30.10.2017).
This Court is ofthe opinion that the plea ofalternative remedy, and that the pendency ofthe appeal being a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition, which ordinarily is a substantial one, is not merited. Once the learned Single Judge discovered that the ex-parte order was notpreceded by proper notice to the respondent-Doctor and other concerned Doctors, it was evident that there was a manifest failure ofnaturaljustice. In these circumstances,even while ensuring that corrective action, by way of directing fresh proceedings, the learned Single Judge has protected the interest ofthe complainant by ensuring that the complaint was to be disposed ofwithin a time bound manner i.e. six months,with further adequate safeguards.
Having regard to these facts,the Court is ofthe opinion that the lone plea of alternative remedy is not a substantial one so as to warrant interference with the orders oflearned Single Judge. Atthe
LPA 1/2018 Page 2of3 same time,whilethe MCIshall ensure thatthe time limit specified is adhered, to the extent, it is expedient; it shall also ensure that the
Overseeing Committee, which has been appointed to look into its affairs and functioning, is further apprised ofthis order to ensure its compliance..
The appeal is disposed ofaccordingly.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT,J A.K.CHAWLA,J JANUARY 05,2018 nn
LPA 1/2018 Page 1 of2
JUDGMENT